Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2019

Contents

File:MG-002-0038 Antiguo Congreso NacionalBW 01.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 23:11:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Anonymous
    Unknown author
    - uploaded by Mauricio V. Genta - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Another version without desaturate the color saturation Ezarateesteban 23:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Compositionally average, and the sides are also dirty. Perhaps a VI to show what the building formerly looked like, but not an FP for me. -- King of ♠ 05:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King of Hearts, it's a very useful image but for me just not interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the King--Boothsift 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King. Doesn't seem to have enough historic value to overcome the lack of wow. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Boothsift 03:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Poster for Jules Massenet's La Navarraise with Emma Calvé in the rôle of Anita.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 14:38:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Keep it in /Non-photographic media#Posters and advertisement. There are already other posters that include photos or drawings based on photos in that cat. It's best to think: "Hmmm, now where would I find posters for entertainment?" When you start to fix up old movie posters, we'll just make a new category for that. :-) --Cart (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Hehe, that doesn't count since it is pure drawing. --Cart (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ezarateesteban 23:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It seems to me like your nominations have better and better resolution :) --Podzemnik (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Podzemnik: I can't promise that'll be a permanent trebd - lots of non-posters to do as well - but I have a pretty good stash of high-res ones. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sorry, but it doesn't wow me. Otherwise, I would support it--Boothsift 00:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Boothsift: That 's fair. As I said on en-wiki, I think a big part of this image's wow - that a photograph could be enlarged this much, which wouldn't really be a regular thing until the 1920s - is permanently lost. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Val de Funes cun la Odles d'auton Südtirol.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 19:24:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
  •   Info created & uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The contrail really has to be carefully edited out. Such trails are temporary so I don't think there are any ethical issues with removing them, and more than removing dust spots. This one is too distracting. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment I'm a fan of reality as it is. These includes (in the opposite to dust spots produced by the camera) people on squares, sheep on meadows, and here the crane above the house (also temporary) and the contrails in the sky. --Stepro (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Moroder: Your statement "Feel free to use my photos, but please mention me as the author and send me a message." contradicts in the last part, in my opinion, the CC license. In addition, you require the version 3.0-de above, and below the version 4.0 of the license. You have to decide please. --Stepro (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Stepro, "mention me as author" is of course required by the licence. I take the "but please.... send me a message" to be a request rather than a requirement, so it doesn't contradict the licence. Another example, you may release your work under CC0, which waives all rights, and still request attribution and a notification. -- Colin (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice colors, would be better a little wider but nonetheless great shot. -- King of ♠ 05:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support maybe per Colin. Du machst Dich um das Ladinische wirklich verdient, Wolfgang ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks surreal. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 07:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Matthias Süßen (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

*  Oppose Sorry, but the license must be clear. In the author field it is 3.0-de, in the box below "license-header" it is 4.0. I will change my vote to support as soon as it is fixed. --Stepro (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment @Stepro: I'm not very familiar with licenses but I don't see any License 3.0-de in the author field. Couldn't I simply fix it deleting the "license-header"? Regards --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I just found out, it's only in German language, but not in English. I will write you on your Talk page, here OK for me. --Stepro (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's a little bit too bright, but still a great quality photo. Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Stepro (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Qualified support Not as sharp throughout as one would expect given the size, but just too stunning an image for that to be anywhere near enough to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, and about the contrail: The part of the mountain that was clearcut is much more disfiguring, but it's real, and if that is being shown, I don't see a good reason to delete the contrail. That said, there are some dust spots that should be removed because they are not part of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/Italy

File:Ivan Shishkin - Рожь - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 05:39:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Ivan Shishkin - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 05:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pine (✉) 05:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only 9MP means we lack detail compared to many of our FP paintings and in particular we are usually spoiled by Google Art Project paintings many many times more detailed than this -- this is like a thumbnail in comparison. The crop in the top left is poor and the image has significant vignetting in the corners, either due to the lens or bad lighting. I don't see what is "among our finest" about this photographic rendering of a painting. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't care so much about the resolution, but all the other points made by Colin I entirely agree. --Stepro (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the artwork very much, but Colin makes some good points. Cmao20 (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, Pine, the painting is really great but I'd expect better quality. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The quality is not FP level--Boothsift 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I didn't realize it was a painting until I read these !votes, and per Colin I probably should have. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Pine (✉) 02:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Eisvogel kingfisher.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 05:59:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by Frank-2.0 uploaded and nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 05:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 05:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Perfect composition, and great combination of colors with the yellow lichen: a natural example of the 3 primary colors. Yann (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 15:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry for killing the mood, but having seen my fair share of kingfishers in the wild there is significantly too much saturation in the picture. This orange cannot be explained with perfect light conditions. Otherwise a great shot, with perfect posture and beautiful detail :-( C-M (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@C-M: The species is orange though, just adding that--Boothsift 18:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Boothsift: Yes they are, over the years I have probably seen around 50 in the wild. If you have a look around you will find many excellent natural pictures here which are not that orange and more brownish. Feel free to compare with drawn field guides as these tend to have a fairly realistic color rendition, I have the Collins bird guide here on my desk as an additional reference («... underparts and cheek patch warm orangey brownish-red ...»). C-M (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded a more realistic version with the saturation reduced by 30% - not sure whether I did the licensing correctly, I had to remove the flickr reviewer part of the description for the upload to pass, so feel free to fix potential problems there. C-M (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@C-M: You can upload a new version of the original file instead. As the bot is glitchy, I have removed the picture. --Boothsift 04:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I intentionally did not want to change the original as that would interfere with the candidacy. We could nominate the desaturated version as an alternate, but we should in that case probably notify everyone who left already a vote. C-M (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 05:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per C-M. – Lucas 06:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per C-M --Stepro (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Invalid vote--Boothsift 20:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, first c&p mistake and than blind on both eyes. I fixed my vote. --Stepro (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Boothsift 06:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Castle in Narok (Norok), Silesia.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 12:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The tree obstructs the building. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. And it's not just one tree. I find the placement of the trees annoying, and it's a nice stylized castle, so I want a clear look at it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others – Lucas 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann--Boothsift 17:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I quite like it, I think the building is visible enough, the colours are lovely and the angle seems ok. Cmao20 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 05:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Hereford Cathedral Lady Chapel, Herefordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 15:33:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Kelp gull portrait, New Brighton, New Zealand.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 20:48:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Wilfredor: I tried a different crop. Posterization was caused by me playing with the temperature too much so I've restored the original version. I'm not sure what you mean by reflections. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Posterization is gone, cut is better and underexposition IMHO is fixed, I love the natural colors --Wilfredor (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
You're right, it's better now. Thank you for your vote, your opinion is appreciated! --Podzemnik (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain Until another look later--Boothsift 00:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 13:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no issues here, as good as your previous bird portrait. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 21:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes

File:Vietnam War protestors at the March on the Pentagon.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 19:44:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Eatcha, yes it is grainy. That is because it is taken with Photographic film and all such old photos look sort of like that. The Film grain is one of the properties of such images, I guess you are to young to know about things like this. :-) Anyway, the grain should not be "fixed". --Cart (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very evocative for me as very few faces are shown.--Peulle (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Grain is acceptable given the era. I find the image an interesting piece of historical documentation that deserves a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   +1 it's really an important issue per List of the lengths of United States participation in wars (17.4 years) -- Eatcha (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a particularly interesting shot, not a particularly important moment by itself (if needed prob Nov 15, '69 should be singled out). -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle --Boothsift 21:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree others Seven Pandas (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality is pretty much what you can expect from this kind of shot. Being a documentary photograph of a public event, it was probably taken on regular 135 film. So it will have more pronounced grain than the studio portraits taken on medium or large format film that we usually get to see here. That being said, I'll have to agree with Peulle as well. --El Grafo (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 05:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even in the 60s (and earlier) it was possible to take sharp pictures without any grain. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Not a picture that evokes the era well. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

File:View from Isthmus Peak Trail to Lake Hawea, New Zealand 03.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 20:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Snow
  •   Info Created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's a view to Lake Hawea. What is interesting about this photo is that you can see that it's snowing there. The day was fairly warm so the snow didn't make it all the way down to the lake but it made it to the mountain tops. I'm standing around the snow line so you can see that on the left ridge the snow is presented but just a little bit down the ridge the snow doesn't reach the ground and melts before it has a chance to touch the surface. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 00:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, but please consider my suggested crop --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure to be honest. I quite like the left part because it's the only part with snow on the ground. The photo is nominated for category Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Snow - if it was for the Nature category or the main object would be the lake, I'd be keen. Also, quite a few people have already voted for this version. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 13:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Stepro (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 21:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Just looking makes me remember the feeling of slightly stiff legs juxtaposed with a welcome breeze blowing cools against a newly exposed sweaty neck ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

File:Opuntia echios, isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-26, DD 17.JPGEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 11:12:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Caryophyllales
  •   Info Closeup of a flat cactus (Opuntia echios), Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. c/u/n by me, Poco2 11:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 11:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting image. Sharpness is not great all over, but I think it's adequate considering how close-up this must be. Cmao20 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The idea is good but the execution needs some work. The bottom spines are cut off at an awkward place, and I would like to see more depth of field (focus stacking would help). -- King of ♠ 04:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    KoH: I've tilted and cropped it using a newer processing version in Lr. Focus stacking is of course not possible anymore for this image --Poco2 08:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    Better, but the blur on the left side is unfortunately something that may be too late to fix. -- King of ♠ 00:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose King of Hearts put my ponderings into words. --Cart (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King of Hearts.--Vulphere 05:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King of Hearts --Boothsift 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Measured oppose A nice idea, and good work technically, but per Cart King of Hearts put his finger on the problem: the crops. It was just not going to be possible, at least with this cactus, to take the picture you saw in your mind. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Poco2 18:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Ford Mustang Oldtimertreffen Ebern 2019 6200572.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2019 at 15:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles

File:Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn - Nachtwacht - Google Art Project.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2019 at 20:13:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I noticed that, but since this file has a much higher resolution, I went with this one.--Peulle (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't know exactly how much, but it is certainly too dark. This is quite common for Google Art Project reproduction. --Yann (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann --Boothsift 04:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Russian Fleet (1892) il. 12 Dvenadsat Apostolov - Restoration, cropped.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 22:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Stadler and Pattinot after Vasily Ignatius - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Looks really good, but I like the original, too. I take it, you're totally sure the differences between the original and this file are completely explained by yellowing and otherwise darkening that took place over time, but how sure are you of these brightness levels specifically? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I've compared it to the Gallica copy. The paper was quite yellowed, so it does appear that that was adding a lot of yellow to the inks. Levels are compromised between this and the Gallica copy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - OK, that's good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Boothsift 05:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Bryce Amphitheater from Sunset Point 2019.jpgEdit

  I withdraw my nomination Taewangkorea (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 01:50:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Strong support -- Really like the view Adfasdfsdaddsd (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC) The account doesn't have 10 edits and according to COM:FPC such accounts cannot vote. Probably a sock puppet. Also see this, perhaps connected. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC) Plus this --Podzemnik (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment - Invalid vote - only 2 edits so far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very good iPhone picture, but I was able to guess that it was an iPhone picture before I looked at the metadata. It looks good at 300% of my 13-inch laptop screen, but at higher magnifications - which seem legitimate for this kind of panorama - compare it to King of Hearts' photo, nominated directly above this. Welcome, Adfasdfsdaddsd, but you need 50 edits before you can vote here, and the mere fact that a photo is a panorama is not really a good reason to support its evaluation as one of the very best photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - And nice try, attempting to impersonate me, Taewangkorea. Just compare. I think this merits a warning from an admin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad for iPhone picture but viewing the file at only 50 % of its size, I can still see JPG artifacts in the sky and the landscape is lacking details (perhaps too much luminance has been applied). The sky pixelation is visible at 33 % only. Pretty good picture for a phone and I think we'll see more and more phone pictures at FPC in the future. But for now, to me the quality is not there yet and I'm not wowed enough to forgive what technical side is lacking. --Podzemnik (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for a picture taken using an iPhone 7. --Boothsift 05:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  Oppose now per below--Boothsift 01:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lack of details --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Podzemnik. --Cart (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The quality is actually very good, especially since we can consider the scenery itself part of the quality of a photo. But I must admit, that it could be sharper on some of the details when viewed in full resolution. I do not want to punish people who only have rubbish Apple products more than they are already punished, but while I cannot oppose, I cannot support either. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very surprised this has got support from some established users. It's high-resolution and sufficient quality to use in articles, so thanks for the contribution, but quite apart from the low detail at full-res there are other major flaws including the washed-out sky and the fact that the whole image seems to be leaning to the right. Cmao20 (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose oer Cmao20 and others. Also I refuse to support with this much vandalism going on, one instance by the nominator himself, others by IP adresses. – Lucas 16:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Taewangkorea (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Chapel of Saint Lawrence, Śnieżka (Schneekoppe, Sněžka).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 08:38:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Nelly Diener cropped.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 09:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Swissair / ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, restored and uploaded by PawełMM and Brandmeister, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Nelly Diener, the first air stewardess in Europe, standing in front of the Curtis AT-32C Condor, in which she would lose her life on 27 July 1934.
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Should historic photos be cropped? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: Well, we do that all the time. It is OK here as no important part was removed. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How famous is the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that you're second-guessing the photographer. Would you be willing to offer the original as an alternate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You mean, the unrestored version? Why would you vote for that? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Good question. No, I guess not. Restoration would be needed, either way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

  Comment There should be more room on the left, if any is available before cropping. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support Good photo for the time, and sad to think that this was the aircraft in which she lost her life. Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 05:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Post-and-Grant-Avenue-Look.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 09:49:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by H. D. Chadwick, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info San Francisco Earthquake of 1906: Ruins in vicinity of Post and Grant Avenue. Looking northeast.
  •   Support The resolution is not very high, but still within the rules. I think the historical value overcomes that. -- Yann (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann's argument. Cmao20 (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 05:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 017.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 07:29:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Huge ridge dune in Sossusvlei, Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia. c/u/n by me, Poco2 07:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 07:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good composition with how the ridge of the dune leads the eye into the distance. Sufficiently different from your other dune FPs. Cmao20 (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. I love the way the people help illustrate the sheer scale of the whole thing, but I'm slightly bothered by how close the edge of the shadow is to the bottom of the frame. -- King of ♠ 04:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    KoH, I've exanded the crop Poco2 08:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    Much better. -- King of ♠ 00:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I didn't like the huge shadow before, but in the context of the expanded crop, it works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

Scintillant hummingbird (Selasphorus scintilla) female feeding, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 12:20:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info The scintillant hummingbird is a regional endemic restricted to the Costa Rica and Panama highlands. It is so small (it weighs 2gm), it cannot reach nectar in the normal way. It has to pierce the base of the flower (Abutilon sp.). This cunning way of feeding means that it plays no part in pollination. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting set, and very good quality - excellent work. Cmao20 (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Very nice images indeed. If you would nominate them separately I'd have a problem to promote the second or third, whatever is nominated later. And as a set I don't really understand why these picture are included in a set, specially the second and right. None of the criteria for a set applies here IMHO. Charles, what was your motivation? Poco2 20:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I thought illustrating the way the bird hovers then pirces the flower was valuable here. It's a very unusual behaviour. The first image is the highest quality. I had intended to also add a GIF or APNG of a total of 8 images but can't work out how to make one of high enough quality!. I think this FP set criterion applies: 'A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object. (my bold). If I've misinterpreted the rules, the we could change the nomination I guess which would be a shame. Charles (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is one of the more rarely used of the set criteria, but is precisely the type of thing I had in mind when I originally proposed them. -- King of ♠ 04:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment These are excellent pictures. But as a set the second and the third image are really very similar -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the way she stretches out her body while hovering. I am guessing this is the only way she can generate enough force to penetrate the flower. I've never seen a hummingbird doing anything similar before. Charles (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Since the 3 pictures are impressive enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Different enough and good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 05:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good and enlightening (see Charles’ comment). --Aristeas (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I would have liked a bit more difference between 2 and 3 but all the photos are really good. --Cart (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Everybody who has seen these birds in live knows how difficult is to photograph them. Respect. -- -donald- (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Golden-eyed tree frog (Agalychnis annae).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 19:14:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Amphibians

File:Rockies in the morning.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2019 at 16:29:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
  •   Info Canadian Rockies in the morning. Banff National Park. All by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 16:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Certainly very beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Agreed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Breathtaking. -- King of ♠ 04:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 05:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Fischer.H (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support with two comments: the colors look a bit oversaturated to be natural, and according to the image description this image was taken in the afternoon, not in the morning. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • In my camera I set UTC time. In this part of Canada time is UTC-5. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support But: IMO there are minor dust spots at the left. Please fix it. --XRay talk 10:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I can't find any dust spots. Maybe these are JPEG artifacts? -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per King of Hearts. --Aristeas (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice compo, colors, sky, ect... though the snow is a bit blown. Still a great image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per KoH! --El Grafo (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A pleasure to support this on Canada Day ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/Canada

File:Sri Lankan Leopard at Wilpattu national park - (Brave Beauty).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 15:37:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Not going overcome these six opposes with that yellow light --Boothsift 00:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:McClure Tunnel west.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2019 at 01:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Steve Lyon - uploaded by Rschen7754 - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 01:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 01:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info First nomination. --Cart (talk) 06:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly a very good image, but the interruptions in the light trails are a bit disturbing. --MB-one (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It nearly passed last time, seems OK to me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I quite like it.--Peulle (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The right part cuts the symmetry and I don't find this view attractive -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see no sense in this re-nomination without any change of the image. This image is not outstanding enough to win the star. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 08:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Coast - Los Cancajos 02.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 05:24:04 (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 SCP-2000 -- SCP-2000 (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- SCP-2000 (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice but I think it looks underexposed. --Cart (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately the image is slightly underexposed and not 100% sharp. If the crabs on the rock could be seen right away, it would be a FP. --Ermell (talk) 06:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell, unfortunately, because it's a really good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the image is too dark and too unsharp. --XRay talk 09:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting, and a good composition, but unfortunately not quite sharp enough. Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the others above, despite it being a good composition. --Boothsift 17:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because With 6 opposes and the sharpness, it's not going to succeed. --Boothsift 05:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 08:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

File:JewelSingaporeVortex1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 04:24:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Matteo Morando - uploaded by Matteo Morando - nominated by Pine -- Pine (✉) 04:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pine (✉) 04:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Slightly bothered by the lack of perfect symmetry but otherwise great shot. -- King of ♠ 04:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 05:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed on the sides (shadows are crushed to black), overal too high contrast, and CAs on all the windows. Camera position was not in the center it seems (see escalators). Pixel detail is quite low although the camera is quite capable (max. 36 Mpx). Needs slight sharpening. – Lucas 06:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a remarkable sight, certainly with wow. This airport is only recently completed, so I would expect more images to come. This one is technically weak/downsized per Lucas. -- Colin (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe it's not technical perfect, but all in all it's a FP for me. --Stepro (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose copyvio from https://www.mottmac.com/releases/official-opening-of-jewel-changi-airport-jewel -- Eatcha (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  Info That is very unlikely. The photo on Commons has all EXIF data, which has no on the website you specified. --Stepro (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment It is not uncommon for photographers to upload a couple of their photos here on Commons to get a bit more exposure for their work. You could ask the author for an COM:OTRS ticket just to be on the safe side. Most of us have been in similar situations. I had to supply an OTRS for a photo that was harvested from my Flickr account before I had time to upload it here. --Cart (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Why the date on the EXIF is 18 March 2018, the airport was not open for the public at that time see infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Changi_Airport . On the contrary Mott_MacDonald provided building engineering services for the development, thus they were easily able to photograph it before it was Opened for public. -- Eatcha (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This is being discussed at the photo's deletion request, let's keep that conversation there. There were several previews of the airport before it opened, or the photographer could simply work for a PR company with early access, be a salesperson in one of the stores in the airport or something. That doesn't matter if he want to make his photos available here under a Commons license and can confirm to the OTRS people that the photo is his. --Cart (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Dramatic shot, and great architecture, but quality is not perfect. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the others above, the quality is not FP level IMO--Boothsift 00:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose for so many of the reasons listed above: uncertain copyright status and just not as sharp as it could be. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 08:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Colorful neon street signs in Kabukichō, Shinjuku, Tokyo.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 02:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Well, this was taken with a tripod -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Boothsift 05:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places#Japan

File:Photographer taking a group photograph of smiling students in front of the Tokyo station, Marunouchi, Japan.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 02:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Actually I was on a roof terrasse, located quite far from them. In addition, Japanese language is not really my strongest skill :-) Basile Morin (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Understood. Though some Japanese people speak English. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Boothsift 05:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People#People_at_work

File:Charles Conrad (S64-31465).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 09:17:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People/Portrait

File:IMG drongo.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 12:42:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by Md shahanshah bappy - uploaded by Md shahanshah bappy - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good effort, but too much colour noise and lack of sharpness on the wing, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as Peulle --Stepro (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition. Yes, there are parts not sharp, the wings, but the bird is moving ... --Neptuul (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but noisy picture, and low level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree Puelle Seven Pandas (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile Morin.--Vulphere 03:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately per Basile, great capture but probably not FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I know that the bird is moving, but what Basile says still applies. --Boothsift 00:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-06-02 BeachVolleyball, Die Techniker beach tour Nürnberg StP 1983 LR10 by Stepro.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2019 at 14:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Stepro (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Stepro (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light is not on the right side. The guy in the middle is distracting. Cluttered composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a sports photo. That said you are (especially at larger events) not free in choice of your position, you can't tell staff to move away from the scene and you can't repeat a scene. Regarding all this it is sharp, you can see the movement of the spraying champagne and it is reasonably lit, a clear wow moment for the participants and wowy enough for me to support it. --Granada (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition. Charles (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition doesn't work for me --Boothsift 00:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Other than the spraying champagne, it's in focus and I like the exuberance captured here. I like that the streams cross. You can't plan this. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others, and the man in the middle is in just the right place not to be a problem with the form. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I agree with Basile overall, good but not great for me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-3a.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2019 at 15:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:190701 HK Protest Incendo 05.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2019 at 17:39:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1990-now
  •   Info Hong Kong anti-extradition law protest on 1 July 2019 ~~ created by Studio Incendo - uploaded by Wefk423 - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 17:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy, not enough detail. It also looks more like a photo from a rock consert than a protest and the glary street light is not helping. Small tip: Photos taken with mobile phone camera very, very seldom make good FPs. --Cart (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree Cart. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It looks like a protest to me, given the banners. It's a valuable photo, but the quality is not good enough for QI or FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 12:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above. Useful image, but as Cart says, phone-camera pictures are seldom FP. Cmao20 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others above--Boothsift 00:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination - Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 04:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Swakopmund Jetty HDR.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2019 at 16:41:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created and uploaded by Daniel Kraft, nominated by Yann (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice long sight lines and a peaceful mood, but because of the noise, I can't judge this to be one of the best photos on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Domob (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan Kekek, sorry. --A.Savin 08:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose partly per Ikan and A. Savin. I like it, on the whole, but the noise, the slightly dull light and the blown-out clouds on the top right mean that it isn't FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan Poco2 19:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan --Boothsift 00:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your participation. --Yann (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Atomic Bomb Dome and Motoyaso River, Hiroshima, Northwest view 20190417 1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2019 at 14:31:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info A northwest view of the Atomic Bomb Dome and Motoyasu River, Hiroshima. A good, high-quality view of the city, including its most tragically famous landmark. created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing particulary wow in this skyline, sorry --Wilfredor (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Wilfredor. Useful but not IMO inspiring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the direction of light, and the quality is quite good. We don't have many FPs of second-tier cities in Japan. -- King of ♠ 17:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I indeed miss something here Poco2 19:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Wilfredor --Boothsift 00:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination It seems unlikely to pass. Thanks for all the reviews anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Vista de Cádiz, España, 2015-12-08, DD 72-74 HDR.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 19:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info Morning view of the city of Cádiz from the belltower of its cathedral. c/u/n Poco2 19:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Great quality as ever for your images, but it's a bit drab and gray. More like a QI than an FP to me, unfortunately - if it were a nice sunny day, it would be a support from me. Cmao20 (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I want to see more image on bottom --Wilfredor (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Wilfredor. -- King of ♠ 00:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    I can show more at the bottom but it isn't really pretty, will upload it in aprox. 8 hours --Poco2 08:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light is a bit too dull, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Wilfredor, KoH I've uploaded (and right away reverted) a version with the whole crop. You'll probably confirm my opinion, and as we're going nowhere with this nom, I take it back, Poco2 19:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
IMHO this version with less sky could be FP, but its just my opinion. A hug --Wilfredor (talk) 01:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Poco2 19:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

File:PMSP engaging in road traffic enforcement.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 06:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Not going to overcome 5 opposes, even the nominator is only a "weak support"--Boothsift 00:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Hochkaltergebirge.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 12:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Instructive view of the Hochkalter mountains. All by me -- Milseburg (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Stepro (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful place, but the dull midday lighting is not doing it any justice. -- King of ♠ 16:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I haven't decided how to vote yet but please fix a bug and the left bottom corner. See the notes. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King, sorry. Also the composition is not as interesting as in most of your landscape panoramics. --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, nothing outstanding. -- -donald- (talk) 06:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others – Lucas 18:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Yann (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per King; had it not been for his !vote I might have supported, but he's right, the bar has been set high. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info The Hochkaltergruppe looks like this. For an instructive image, I find the light that prevails most of the day to be best. Anyone who is interested in this mountains will also find the image interesting because many of the details mentioned in de:Hochkalter are show here in synopsis. @Podzemnik: I fixed the issues you mentioned. --Milseburg (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Pedestrian road with pavements, paper umbrellas and people in yukata, Higashiyama-ku, Kyoto, Japan.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2019 at 02:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Japan
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A decent QI, but no real wow factor for me. Also a bit hazy.--Peulle (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A lovely place and the photo is very reminiscent of the first photos of life in Japan, but a slightly less centered point of view might have been better. Also following the lines of this nice place to the vanishing point and you get - a construction site. A step or two to the left and things might have been better (and avoided the Starbucks sign). --Cart (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Starbucks gets everywhere! A nice street scene, I like what the soft light does to it. Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle Poco2 19:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A lot of wow factor actually for me, but I guess it takes a trip to Japan (or even paying attention to details alone) to realise it's maybe not that easy to get a shot like that, with proper framing, a good light and only a couple (wearing kimonos) walking in the middle of a very picturesque street. Almost feels staged. - Benh (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment by the way, if you used f/13 to get maximum DOF, I don't think you needed to. compared to something like f/8, you only get 60cm more of "sharp" area (1.6m to infinite again 1m to infinite with f/13) - Benh (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Benh, thanks for your review. How do you make this calculation ? See this picture for example at f/8 where the sides were unsharp, while the distance was higher than 1.6m (and the focal length wider). -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Basile, I use a DOF calculator (mine is from Photopills but they provide a web version as well. I don't trust them actually, because most don't take in account the resolution of the sensor (like the one for photopills), but my point was that maybe it wasn't necessary to stop down this much. Based on the Photopills DOF calc, you need to focus at about 3m, not at infinity, for this to work. - Benh (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I see. Very technical. But difficult to use in practice (in the street without computer). Here I used the autofocus, targeting the walking people. So f/13 was to get the foreground as sharp as possible, with this priority. Maybe with static subjects I would have processed differently. Interesting tool, though -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice to see a photo from Japan, but no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others--Boothsift 00:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Perhaps the couple was not close enough, unfortunately they took a road aside and disappeared just after this picture. At midday the light was also maybe too strong -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Erik Werenskiold - Peasant Burial - Google Art Project.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 16:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic_media#Outdoor_events

File:Sunrise in the Valley of Fire.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 18:41:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Nevada
  •   Info: all by me -- СССР (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose. Really beautiful, but sharpened at too high of a radius, resulting in weird-looking edges. Also could use a little more space at the top. -- King of ♠ 20:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King of Hearts, a great-looking panorama at thumbnail, but looks like way too high-radius sharpening that's made it look very odd at full-res. I think it's worth having a go at processing this from RAW a lot more naturally, then I would probably support. Cmao20 (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cmao20 and King of Hearts--Boothsift 01:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

File:View to Piran from St. George's Parish Church, Piran, Slovenia 11.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2019 at 15:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info View of Piran from St. George's Parish Church, Piran, Slovenia. I like the chaotic beauty of this image, as well as the colours and shapes it contains. Created by Podzemnik - uploaded by Podzemnik - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Cmao20 for nominating this. I was thinking about nominating the photo myself. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC) PS: Will you find a cat?
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 13:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Wet-blanket oppose Well done technically, but all I see is a chaotic collection of clashing forms. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Daniel, not sure where to look at here --Poco2 21:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Viewed as an abstract composition, it's very good; even if some of the crops could be seen in isolation as a bit arbitrary, it works. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Chaotic collection of forms, that's why it is interesting. ;o) --Yann (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the chaos --Llez (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment A little too late I found out what was bugging me with this photo: The blue window on the left. Crop it out (getting rid of the shadow below it is a bonus) and you get a harmonious clutter. Never mind that now. ;-) --Cart (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Vladimir asv2019-01 img10 Water Tower.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 15:36:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors#Russia

File:Глаз флерницы.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2019 at 20:01:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:20180128 FIS NC Worldcup Seefeld Ilka Herola 850 2666.jpg (delist), not delistedEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2019 at 07:13:31
 

  •   Info Downscaled and still unsharp as hell. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Granada (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep Delist reason is nothing that wasn't touched on in the original nom discussion. -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep Overall sharp enough for a panning shot. Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep per above... Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Although I will concede that it may be too soon to do a keep/delist nom at this time, it is the photographer himself who nominates this for delisting. Who am I to disagree when someone says their own photo is not good enough?--Peulle (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist The author wanted it himself so...@KennyOMG:, @Cmao20:, @Martin Falbisoner: --Boothsift 01:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Granada, you want to delist your own photo that you nominated yourself? That's very confusing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    Maybe Granada can explain the motivation, last year he was convinced that the picture was a FP and now the opposite, indeed confusing Poco2 08:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
    Standards change. In 2019 I did better at the nordic combined world championships and some of the panned shots of ski jumpers were sharp even at 100%. --Granada (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Valid argument to me Poco2 21:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Please nominate any photos you believe would merit FP designation. I feel very strange being asked to negate a vote I made last February, so I decline to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, would you support this photo now that you have gathered more experience as a reviewer? I think that that would be rather the question to answer. --Poco2 21:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. Yes, I would.   Keep. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I wrote I did better, not good enough for FPC. --Granada (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this is good enough for FP, but if you successfully nominate 5 or 7 new photos of similar motifs that are way better than this, we could revisit this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep.--Vulphere 05:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep per others -- Eatcha (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep for now. If Granada thinks he has better images in the pipeline, let him nominate them first. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Daniel, I'd be happy to support a delist and replace if the newer image is similar and better. That's what I plan to do with Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2014 panorama 1.jpg if I ever get around to reshooting it with my yet to be acquired Nikon Z 7 Mark II. For me, it is only acceptable to delist an image that still meets our FP criteria on Commons if 1) there is a proposed replacement which is clearly better and 2) the creator of the original FP consents to it (usually this means a like-for-like replacement by the creator). This stands in contrast to English Wikipedia, where 2 is not required. Here 1 is not met. -- King of ♠ 01:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't think it's a good idea to nominate that big panorama for any kind of delisting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Result: 4 delist, 8 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted.

File:Église Saint-Laurent de Laurac007.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2019 at 06:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I find the subject very interesting, but the light is a little bit grey and flat. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Cmao. -- King of ♠ 04:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Cmao. The village is beautiful, the perspective good, just the light is flat, it’s a pity. --Aristeas (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao28 and Aristeas. To me, the photo is missing the magic of a photograph at sunset or perhaps in a sunshower or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cmao and Aristeas. --Boothsift 04:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Inspiration Point Bryce Canyon November 2018 panorama.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 02:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Oppose Too little info about imageTaewangkorea (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support Great image. Agree with othersTaewangkorea (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should count this vote as valid. 1) It's clearly a revenge vote, 2) the reason is not true (there is enough information about the image), 3) even though I'm trying to assume good faith, after seeing what happened here (check the history), I'm struggling to see how contributions of this user to the project will end up in a positive manner. If anybody disagree with me, feel free to revert me. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

  • some kind of revenge vote? You're really into bad first impressions, aren't you, Taewangkorea? Please do contribute to this project in a civil manner. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If you read the info on the file page you will see that it is 08:15 in the morning. --Cart (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/United States

File:Callithrix penicillata - Maroparque 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 05:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Much better, but still a bit imbalanced. Charles (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Too cramped on both sides for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
    •   Info I uploaded a version with a wider crop --Llez (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Thanks. I'm undecided now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Generally in a zoo it is easier to make more spacious shots, without it being High-angle and with more space on the right. the focused composition does not work for me either the strong flash that could annoy an already trapped animal --Wilfredor (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Castle Tarde in La Roque-Gageac.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 15:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Coelodonta antiquitatis Crane.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 18:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Ikan Kekek: Thank you--Boothsift 01:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Meybille Bay 07.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2019 at 17:08:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.