Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2018

Contents

File:Paris, Eiffelturm -- 2014 -- 1272.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 13:32:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Pycnonotus goiavier analis.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 00:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Eurasian tree sparrow 2 cropped.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 06:05:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Tectarius pagodus 01.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 06:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Fuente Wittelsbacher, Plaza Lenbach, Múnich, Alemania, 2015-07-04, DD 07-09 HDR.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2018 at 14:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info The Wittelsbacher foutain is a monumental fountain at the north border of Munich downtown (Germany). The fountain was built between 1893 and 1895 following drawings of the sculptor Adolf von Hildebrand. The subject of the 25-long-basin is the forces of the water element with the allegory of the destruction on the left hand and of the blessing force on the right. Note: this is the second nom of this image after some feedback I got in the first nom. Poco2 14:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 14:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Podzemnik (talk) 02:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now because of quality issues. The strange countours of the sculptures (most visible at the horse) need to be fixed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
* Yes there is a halo on the horse's chest Diego. Otherwise very nice (apart from the fag ends!) Charles (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Better, but not completely fixed. There are still some halos at the horse's neck and at the side of the horse rider. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Uoaei1: I uploaded a last version, please, have a look. --Poco2 19:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks, I knew that you can manage it! --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 15:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Disturbing beer bottle :-)--Ermell (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
    Ermell, what do you mean? :) --Poco2 19:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The full or empty bottle on the left close to the horse. Is not meant seriously :-)--Ermell (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Ermell: shit, I got rid of the one below the horse head :( --Poco2 20:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Detached without a trace. Bravo.--Ermell (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Young boy smiling, holding a fighting rooster in Laos.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 10:13:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thanks, Peulle, but please sign your edit -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose He has a compelling smile but the background is just a little too complex for that smile to carry the day. Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support for both the boy and the rooster. What is protruding from the rooster's body with the "DANGER" sign on it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this is a laser light, which makes kind of red spots at long distances, sometimes used by teachers on their board. And pretty sure this is not attached to the rooster but hold in the boy's hand -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks all for the reviews -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Larry the cat standing on gravel and gently pulling on a wool string in Auderghem, Belgium (DSCF2328).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2018 at 10:41:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Of course. I made it much brighter and posted an alternative portrait crop. --Trougnouf (talk) 12:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The entire left-hand portion of the composition is unnecessary, per El Grafo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternative (portrait crop)Edit

 

  •   Info Alternative portrait crop as per El Grafo's request. --Trougnouf (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --Trougnouf (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - That is one fat cat! But cute. This composition is fun. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. And I also like its face expression. Undecided. Between staying here staging for the picture, or let it go with the heavy body -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose quality not there, nor composition. Charles (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Irresistible. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even though I'm a cat lover, I don't find this striking. It lacks composition and the quality could be better. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate background --Llez (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Why is a door a bad background for a pet cat? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unremarkable. We have hundreds of photos of house cats and this one doesn't seem to have any special qualities or outstanding characteristics. The primary criteria for featured picture is value and I don't see this photo having a lot of value for the projects. Kaldari (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • It shows the cat behavior of pulling on a string, which could easily be used in an article on cat behavior. If you find the subject and composition unremarkable, those are perfectly reasonable reasons to oppose, but being sure a photo couldn't be used in an online article (and I remind you that neither is this VIC where value is the be-all and end-all nor is Commons solely for the use of Wiki sites) IMO shows a lack of imagination. We've repeatedly seen examples of photos that were claimed by someone not to be encyclopedic and were subsequently used appropriately in Wikipedia articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Gutweed at high tide and low tide, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 21:06:16 (UTC)

  •   Info Category Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms#Algae. Unlike plants on land, things growing in the sea are in constant motion, especially algae that grow in the tidal zone with waves lapping. To get a short enough exposure time without a too high ISO, a tradeoff with DoF had to be done even if this was shot on one of the sunniest days in years. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question I quite like the second picture but not at all the first one on the left. Is it possible to split our votes ? :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not in a vote for a set, but I tend to feel similarly. I think that if these two photos are made into a single composite photo, that could be a good VI (VIC doesn't accept sets anymore because of some technical problem). I'd consider supporting the second photo for FP, but probably not the first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm a little surprised by this. Normally voters tend to want plants to be at their best, looking as good and natural as possible. In this case that would be the left photo, I thought it would be the right one that would have a hard time. But if it is the general feeling, sure, I can withdraw this and submit just the right-hand one. That would also leave me free to later submit a photo of the high tide version that I think is better, just not as an identify species photo. --Cart (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I actually like the lefthand one more ... the other one has some sections of the plant that seem posterized. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Daniel, the parts of the algae that are not filled with the produced oxygen are thin as film, so a couple of layers of them, as there is in some places, creates a very homogenous patch that looks like a posterized part. That's what's happening. Not the easiest growing thing to deal with though. Anyway, it might be better to do these one by one. --Cart (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Let's try them one by one instead. --Cart (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

File:ET Gondar asv2018-02 img42 Debre Berhan Selassie.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 13:22:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Río Matanuska, Palmer, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 55-59 PAN.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 19:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Wood white (Leptidea sinapis) female.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2018 at 15:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - This doesn't impress me as much as your butterfly pictures normally do. It's sharp in some places, but you usually get more sharpness on the subject, overall. I also don't love the stem being stuffed on the right side, with the plant cut off on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much (of the edges) of the wings is out of focus. And the unpleasant plant should be cropped largely. --Hockei (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose With that light and plant, it looks too depressing for a butterfly photo. Also quality issues per Hockei. --Cart (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Aesthetically the flower is too sad. But the specimen is well identified, as usual, and sorted in acurate categories -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Waimea Canyon, Kauaʻi.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 02:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/United States

File:46-212-5007 NNP Skolivski Tustan RB 18.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 15:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
  •   Info created by Rbrechko - uploaded by Rbrechko - nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, there are too many technical quality issues.--Peulle (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I wouldn't really support but I wonder what the too many technical quality issues are. Timing is good, and maybe author didn't sharpen but it's easy "fix" (if it's even considered a fault) and at 6000x4000 come on... And other than that... and I believe the flare is a feature. There are much worse FP. - Benh (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Because it's necessary to remove the very inspired FPX. - Benh (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perhaps not a FPX but clearly not a support from my side, because of the inelegant flares, the back light, and the ugly board which completely ruins the landscape. This picture reminds me this recent nomination that was still better -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice composition, lovely. IMO the image needs at least a perspective correction. And there are a lot of lens flares, may be dust on the lens. --XRay talk 06:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that it was not dust on the lens. It was a high humidity and it was windy that day. As result there were many small drops of water and snowflakes (some of snowflakes are visible as short white strips) in the air. So I think that flares are result of sun rays passing through small water droplets. I like how these flares look here, so I don't want to remove them. --Rbrechko (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • What about the diagonal fences? I presume they don't look like that. Is that a feature? I'd like to see what this photo looks like with perspective correction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • 11-mm lens... It will be hard... I think that rocks will not fit into the frame or will be too flattened after perspective correction. Maybe I'm wrong, but in this case bent fence makes photo more dynamic. --Rbrechko (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well it looks weird to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  • Not sure that it is better. Alternative remake: --Rbrechko (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It feels more natural, but you lose the most dramatic gestures in the clouds and the fences on the right are cropped worse on the bottom in this version. Thanks for satisfying my curiosity, anyway; I appreciate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No big difference with the first version in relation with my previous oppose -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Aerial view of Apple Park dllu.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 08:50:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by Dllu -- dllu (t,c) 08:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- dllu (t,c) 08:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It's staggering that someone can just say "I like the idea of Pentagon, but can we build a round house instead? It's more fun." --Cart (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good - and I like that you got the entrance and exit of the tunnel just below. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:37, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 13:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support "Where's the new Apple headquarters building?" "I don't know, but it's around here somewhere." Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Damn you. You made me laugh so hard I spilled my tea. Now I have to make new tea and it's all your fault. ;-P --Peulle (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Dent de Vaulion in infrared.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 11:37:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Noice levels are always high when you deal with infrared photography. You can't treat it as normal photography. The grass is annoying though, it looks like a tear in the photo. Fixable? --Cart (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
With a lawnmower, yes. I don't think it's possible in post - too much work for too little reward.--Peulle (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  --Cart (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Is it better ? I tried to fix the problems. --Lahminewski Lab (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Infrared or not, it's not a great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Desna river Vinn meadow 2016 G2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 10:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Question What's the difference? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I distinguish them by fog being general all over, something that shrouds everything. Mist, by contrast, is in little patchy areas like these, near the ground, where it doesn't obscure all you can see or only in a very small area.

I think the meteorological distinction is that if visibility within is less than 5 km, it's fog; otherwise it's just mist. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural#Ukraine

File:Fokker DR1 D-EFTJ OTT2013 D7N9244 005.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 13:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
  •   Info created & uploaded by Ritchyblack - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Main object is very sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks good to me, too. What do you all think about the size of the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cool shot, but to me it looks like the aim was slightly off and there has been an attempt at correcting the sharpness in post. I don't think it has succeeded; there's even CA on the cross.--Peulle (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Wow is definitely presented but I think that technical quality could have been better. There are many signs of post-processing like CA on wheels, there is a visible line from the right wheel, a triangle-like thing on the left top of the lower wing there and so forth. Do you think you can try to fix that? --Podzemnik (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technical quality is not really FP. Don't know if it has been downsized Ikan Kekek. Charles (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle and Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Fuerteventura, El Cotillo — Cuvier's beaked whale.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 09:42:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info Skeleton of a Beaked Cuvier's whale (Ziphius cavirostris) on Fuerteventura, Canary Islands. The whale was found beached here in 2004.
  •   Support -- Cayambe (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support very good compsition --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A VI maybe, and perhaps QI (although it does seem a little oversharpened), but for me it's just too ordinary to be an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - Not ordinary to me. Perhaps a different color in the sky might make the photo more interesting, but then again, it could detract attention from the whale skeleton. It's a subtle composition, but as Wolfgang says, a good one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I tweaked the category, since these are the bones of a whale, not a whale itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Melolonthinae on a banana leaf.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2018 at 10:12:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Sorry I really don't see any issue with the focus stacking here. Could you please add a note ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Your picture is so detailed, small editing errors show up! I've added notes. ps - I love the groove in the leaf from the front left leg. Charles (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep at it. More to do! Charles (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No. I won't do anymore -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • And the notes must be edited on the nomination page, not on the file page. Please read the guidelines for more details Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator#Local_annotations : "Sometimes, one might use image notes for an image on other pages, though. An example is nominations for featured pictures, where notes that are local to the nomination, but that are not shown on the file description pages, could be used to point out problems in an image." -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose  Support Excellent I'm sorry, but nobody asked me opinion before remove my review note. BTW, I have worked in photographs with a high level of complexity and even some in which I put my security at risk and I understand the enormous work that this has, however, I can not be a justification for ignoring my recommendations and especially the comments of Charles, another expert in this type of photograpy. --The Photographer 14:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Photographer: your note was not edited on the right page. There's no reason to read "blow area" on this file. Such kind of note is rather to specify the gender, or any detail that will help the observer to understand the content. Here you're talking about technical aspects, related to this nomination. Then, you're welcome to paste it on this nomination page, instead, if you want. But as I said, this is not blown : the focus is right, from the original files -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Photographer: Just be informed that a note added directly on the file page is considered as vandalism, and must be removed. You can strike your "Support Excellent" for any other reason, but please do it in good faith and in good knowledge. As mentionned in the page Commons:Image_annotations#Examples_of_inappropriate_and_not-informative_notes: "adding clearly inappropriate notes to images is considered vandalism and, if repeated, will get users adding such notes blocked. The types of notes described in this section should be removed." That's what I did, and there's no point to be upset about that -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
If you think that it was a vandalism, I think that you should report it to a admin. --The Photographer 22:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 N Caution : Revenge vote 1 2 is not acceptable here. And yes, such subjective note like "This photo is underexposed" edited on the file page is vandalism from the official guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
My oppose is because the blow area in the image,[1] a note added for me, and of courese removed because it was a "Vandalism". --The Photographer 00:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not true. This note was added on the 26th May and not followed by any change nor comment on the nomination page until I legitimately removed the notes on the 27th of May. The "Support excellent" was still there on the 27th at 12:59. Thus clearly a revenge -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I invite you not to take my comments personally and if you are not accepting criticism of your images, maybe FPC is not a good place. After removing my note, you have called me vandal and a liar, which is a clear violation of the terms of service. --The Photographer 01:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Not true. Just after removing this note, which was posted on the wrong page, I kindly informed The Photographer of the issue, and initiated a nice invitation to re-paste it on the right page. At no time I employed the words of "vandal" expressly, nor "liar". Liar is an insult. I'm just saying The Photographer changes the history and is maybe not acting in good faith. In addition, 33 of my photographs were promoted here in the last 6 months, and I review a lot of pictures everyday in the FP section. Then I don't think I've got any lesson to receive from a weak reviewer unable to accept the consensual rules -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Amazing photo! But can you narrow down at least to the genus if not the species level? Melolonthina is a subfamily. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ikan. This picture is at least 12 hours work. About 3 hours shooting, 3 hours selecting the files from several series, 3 more hours improving the result on photoshop after focus stacking, and then 3-4 hours spent trying to identify the species. Installing the studio with lightbox, lights, tripod, camera and remote, finding a background, and positioning the insect is just the beginning. Working with living animals is never as simple as with inanimate object. See on this video what's the normal behavior of this beetle when it is not running away ! Not moving so much, but far enough to make you wait, wait, and patiently wait. Then sometimes it stops, so gooood you can start shooting. However, it's not just a single shot you make, but between 20 and 25 in order to create a single series with focus stacking. Each picture requires attention and vigilance. Most often, when you are at your 12th or 13th photo, then the animal decides to incline the body, or to move its leg, or the head, a short move that totally ruins the whole series. Better to change the angle and start a new compo to save time in the next step (selection). This day, I made about fifteen series. A few ones failed due to minor errors, like eyes not exactly in focus, some others failed due to the composition (one leg badly positioned for example), and many ones failed due to strong noise or low DoF, because 400 iso or f/7.1 was not adapted (though you have to be quick). Finally I got this version shot at 160 ISO and this one here at 50 ISO. This last series was made after the shooting session was finished, the equipment tidy, and the beetle already released on its support on my terrasse. But... funny thing, it finally got asleep, there ! So I started a new session, with the same equipment, and luckily managed to make these shots at ISO 50 /large DoF. Next step : selecting the files = very long ! Always zooming, sticking your eyes to the screen, find the file showing sharp eyes (very important), processing in the software, deleting some extra shots or some weak ones, etc. After that, choose the best series. Here again, zoom and compare, and it's not as quick as it seems ! When you have your final pictures, they're never perfect. Don't believe that the (excellent) software Helicon focus gives such a result right after processing. Because of the blown borders of the different parts, there's always a margin around the body where the background is not as sharp as the near area. The software is able to see a sharp hair, but when the focus is on it, then the background behind is blurry of course. So you don't have this missing part. A lot of work must follow on Photoshop, and this is also an important task. To finish, you have your beautiful piece of art, then you just need to upload it on Commons. But... I spent more than 3 extra hours trying to find the species. I'm a photographer, not a zoologist. Sure, I'm able to search and I managed to find this Eurema blanda, this hypomeces or this lytta in the past. However, the task was not as simple with this body. Spent unexpected hours on Wikipedia, Wikimedia, Google and BugGuide to identify the object, but that Melolonthinae really looks rare ! A similar one is shown on this blog, but without absolutely any detail. Now I am of good will of course, and ready to investigate further, but I honestly don't know how. Any clue welcome. This photo IMO is interesting for its level of details, especially the legs. This is a 28 Mpix sharp image. Totally agree that the species would be a great value, but the only thing to say now is it's big (51 mm) and found in Laos. See on Wikipedia, the Melolonthinae page, many tribes are just inexistant. I can guess it's a Melolonthini, but wikipedia doesn't mention this part of the world in its distribution -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
I hear you. Hats off! I just hope someone can identify at least the genus. Jee, you haven't come around here for some time. Do you have any idea what species or genus this beetle is? Any other entomological experts we could ping, given that Charles would have presumably spoken up if he knew more specifics about this critter? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
It might be very difficult to narrow down the ID any further without examining the specimen by experts. Usually they will not comment more even if asked. Jee 04:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks, Jee. Since it doesn't seem practical to narrow down this insect's identification more, I'll support. If we can ever determine what species it is, it could be a VI, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • id will be impossible withoput expert opinion. Looking at the lack of two large spurs on the front legs it does not appear to be Melolonthini or even Melolonthinae. This is a problem for FP I think. Charles (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It's too easy to pretend a cat is not a cat as long as you don't prove it's a dog or a rat. Ikan, this specimen is most likely a Lepidiota (Melolonthinae -> Melolonthini -> Leucopholina -> Lepidiota). There's no page about this genus on Wikipedia in English, but one in French (Lepidiota) where it's said this Melolonthinae is common in South-East Asia. Size vary, and there's a few similar specimens on Google, examples : 37 mm, or 55 mm. Then now specified in the description & category -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per the editing errors noted by Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • still more focus-stacking errors to do though. Charles (talk) 09:44, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Regretful oppose because Basile Morin has removed all my detailed notes identifying quite clear (though minor) focus-stacking errors. You'll have to go back through the History tab to see the errors. Charles (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Here is an example of a "normal" focus stacking work : Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Lytta.jpg, 21 supports and a "good job" from Charles. Then, compare. Look at the central leg, for example. No way. This one is far better on the technical aspect. So if this picture is too big, just downsize it at 6 Mpix, that's far enough for a good quality print -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In retrospect I should have pointed out the editing errors on the previous FP nomination. I think when the proposed image is an artificial, though impressive, studio creation we can demand standards that are completely unrealistic for a traditional image. Yes the editing must take a very long time, but if the end result can be improved then we are entitiled to point out the flaws. Charles (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I made an error in adding notes on the file page. I apologise for this. I have done this for five years and this is the first time someone (Cart) explained the correct procedure. So I put my 100% valid notes in the wrong place, but that is no reason for Basile Morin to accuse me of vandalism. That is just provocative and not worthy of a talented contributor to FP. An apology would be welcome. Charles (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks great --Trougnouf (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:05, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tozina (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice work.--Ermell (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Six notes added (hopefully in the correct place this time) to illustrate editing defects which Basile Morin has decided not to correct. Charles (talk) 09:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've added my comments behind each of them -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   procedural oppose. The image notes were added in good faith but in wrong place. Basile should have transferred them here, rather than just deleting them and expecting reviewers to redo all their hard work. Removing such notes is the equivalent of deleting a reviewer's text. Absolutely not acceptable. Nor is are the references to vandalism, which clearly does not apply to any reviewer here. I expect to see such words struck from this page and some attempt by Basile to make up with Charles and The Photographer, who are understandably upset. -- Colin (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Disagree : "Procedural oppose" is not a valid reason to invoke here. Nor a correct way to review any photograph in FP. All the nominations should be judged for their technical and aesthetic features only, not by the personality of their photographers. Discussions are of course welcome, and we can always debate about some minor improvements, when those are reasonably justified. But it is not acceptable that good pictures suffer from fanciful oppose votes and reciprocally bad pictures fanciful supports, only because their nominators express dissenting or consensual opinions. We should use the template {{Abstain}} in association with such off topic comments, but definitely not send an appreciation likely to influence the final result. Considering a work is insufficient just because the photographer agrees with the official guidelines (readable here), it's like promoting a terrible snapshot because the author is a nice person. This bad practice favors a stressful atmosphere with unreliable reviews and more swinging votes like this one recently, when a basic support suddenly became a "strong oppose because of course Colin knows best and apparently I'm a complete moron"  : Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Bondinho_do_Pão_de_Açúcar_by_Diego_Baravelli.jpg. Also we should neither harrass any user like Poco was harrassed here Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Pantages_HDR.jpg, and several times before. That problem occurs today again and I consider this so called "procedural oppose" precisely anti-procedural. More an extra mean of pressure to gain dishonest comments, that I'm not ready to spread. Unless other former edits get beforehand revised too, in the context my quotes are just timely. Sure we must be inclined in scanning our own creations with open eyes, by accepting all the fair reviews, favorable or unfavorable. Even if they were very minor, the corrections that Charles suggested at first were made, and a grateful reply sent in stride. Check the corrections in the history to see they match with the 7 notes added. Following this correction, 6 new notes arrived, with completely unrealistic expectations, in my opinion, for the reason a focus stacking work can never be perfect, from the technique itself consisting in mixing different images, that's just impossible. Not only removing such notes is acceptable, but it is even clearly recommended : "The types of notes described in this section should be removed." Maybe these notes should have been transfered on the discussion page, but because I found them more fanciful than serious, I prefered to invite the users to reiterate their wrong work, through an invitation to read the guidelines. It's true sometimes acurate and fair reviews can greatly help. Supports and Oppose's give objective sights on our personal creations. They're more than green and red lights, more than "likes" and "dislikes", they really provide orientations. Some tips can be useful in the current nominations, some others may be followed for the next times. But we're free to decide. Wikimedia Commons is not a dictatorship. Nobody here shall use their voting power to try to influence our thoughts, decisions, and personal actions. If the picture is good, its promotion is logics. If it is bad, it must fail for explicit reasons. But sending the message that a picture is bad just because such behavior would be much appreciated gives the worse example of what FP should be. Actually, this picture now suffers from two revenge votes, one from The Photographer and one from Colin, both sending whimsical and contradictory signals. Counter productive -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • My objection is not with the "photographer", but with the nominator's actions/comments at this nomination, where negative review comments were removed and discarded by the nominator, and then false defamatory accusations of vandalism and revenge voting made against the reviewers. I see that Basile has now highlighted, rather than struck, his accusations of vandalism, and has made further dismissive and bad-faith accusations against reviewers wrt revenge voting. Basile, you are wikilawyering. If you had moved the misplaced notes to this page, and responded to them respectfully rather than dismissively, then we wouldn't have had this mess. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Disagree The given link above points towards the original file, not towards the current nomination page. Because no "negative review comments" has never been removed and discarded from this page. Only undesirable notes from the original file got lost (and definitely lost I hope), for a justified reason. Now talking about "defamatory" is absolutely ridiculous and disproportionate. "Bad-faith accusations" are also not true -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "I found them more fanciful than serious". You deleted them and did not copy them here, because you thought they were not serious good faith review comments. I never said the review comments were removed "from this page"? Review comments, made as part of the FPC process, by good faith reviewers, albeit on the wrong place, were removed and deliberately discarded by you because you didn't like them. You've accused those reviewers of being vandals, of making "fanciful" reviews, and of revenge voting. On what planet is that acceptable? -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Never thought it is possible to focus-stack a living beetle --Llez (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods#Order_:_Coleoptera_(Beetles)

File:Algae in Brofjorden at Govik 1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 21:11:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms#Algae
  •   Info All by me, (even if it has been suggested that I nicked the photo from NASA.  ) -- Cart (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I struggle to find any favourable features. Charles (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. I'm just not seeing it. --Peulle (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Something special is missing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I experience the picture as a beautiful painting.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Famberhorst.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like an Impressionist painting of an explosion at a cabbage soup factory ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You're not far off, it is edible and very nutritious as most algae are. --Cart (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The Brofjorden Nebula. I like how photography can be ambiguous in scale. Inches or light years? Still beautiful. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Most of the picture is blurred for no discernible artistic reason.--Ermell (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ermell, I would also have liked to have more parts sharper, but as the algae grow under water (which is not so clear) they are constantly moving and even on this extremely sunny day, a tradeoff had to be made with DoF to get the shutter speed short. The water "steals" too much of the light so this is the only way at a reasonable ISO. Photographing things under water is a bit different than on land. --Cart (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment This makes the difference between QI and FP when such problems can be solved.--Ermell (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll fix it the next time I walk on water. :) --Cart (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I kind of hate to be a killjoy, but the thing is, it does remind me of a kind of abstract painting, but not a kind I like. I think I'd need more happening in the lower right corner for the composition to fully work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I don't think this is going any further, thanks all for your input and comments. --Cart (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

File:ET Amhara asv2018-02 img015 Wunenia.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 12:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Bucerotidae_(Hornbills)
  •   Info Hemprich's hornbill at Wunenia near Gondar, Ethiopia -- All by A.Savin --A.Savin 12:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 12:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks like CA in the tree.--Peulle (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The sky is blotchy. Could you smooth it out? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not FP quality in definition and the eye is not good. It's already been cropped, but the composition would have been enhanced by a much closer crop. Charles (talk)
    The crop is of course discussable, but applied to the current crop as it is, remarks like "Not FP quality in definition" are definitely unfair, especially when compared, for example, with this photo, which is clearly less crisp with even lesser resolution. Not surprising for me though, that someone applies different quality requirements for other people's photos rather than for own ones. --A.Savin 17:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While I think the crop would help (there would be less reason to ponder the unusually grayish sky), it would in all likelihood be too small for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 12:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Alce (Alces alces), Potter marsh, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-22, DD 139.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2018 at 21:00:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info Exemplar of a female moose (Alces alces) in Potter marsh, near Anchorage, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poco2 21:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info This shot was not taken in a zoo. It's a wild and free animal and I was really lucky to have the chance of a close shot. Btw, we have no FPs of any moose/elks. Poco2 21:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice shoot, Why this 1000 ISO? It was done from a helicopter? the animal is sick (excessive amount of flies in the dark part of his leg) ? --The Photographer 21:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
    The Photographer, if you check the exif data you'll see that I used 67 mm, not 670 mm, so I wasn't really far away, as said, I was lucky, it came from the blue. I used ISO 1000 because the lighting was tricky and the exposure time had to be short to get it sharp. I don't see this animal sick because of a minor cut in one leg, wild animals get hurt from time to time, that is how life out there looks like. Poco2 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment We may not have any moose FPs but I'm not wild about the quality of this photo. The light is very harsh and it makes it's fur look strange. Our moose usually have a deep warm brown tint to their fur. Are the Alaskan different? They are a nuisance on the roads here, so I usually get a very good look at them when I step on the brakes to keep from colliding with them. Unfortunately, they are always gone by the time I can get my camera out. --Cart (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Cart: I haven't see so many of them that close, but you may be right, so I warmed it a bit. Regarding the quality, I challenge you to find out something better out there...I don't say that this would be a reason to consider this FP, but that may be a reason to figure out that capture a moose is not so easy (and in this case in her habitat, far from the road). --Poco2 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, there are a lot of good moose photos here in Sweden. They are not hard to find or shoot, it's just that those photographers are not active on Commons (you can picture Google "älgtjur" to get what I mean). The rest they really shoot them during our annual moose hunting season. There are too many of them so they need to cull the population, and moose meat is the most delicious thing you can get. They are also part of our cultural heritage. I'm sorry that I'm so used to good moose photos, having grown up with them around me, that I just can't support this. I expect to see a healthy and robust animal for an FP, something like these specimens (this or this, as you can see we even get them in our gardens). I'm not much of an animal photographer myself, but we do have a moose park just around the corner here and I've been thinking about maybe visit it. Animals in a park is about the level of animal photography I can manage. We'll see. --Cart (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I certainly can't speak for Alaska, never having been there (and the parts of Yukon I've been to have neither roads nor moose), but someone I met once from New Brunswick said they are a problem on rural roads there ... basically, he said, if you hit one at full speed and you're not driving a pickup or SUV, you're going to die when the moose's carcass goes through your windshield, as they are that heavy. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Yep. They are top-heavy and not built for colliding with. My little Mazda is no match for them, so you have to be alert here when driving. --Cart (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've introduced some improvements in a new version --Poco2 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The first version uploaded look less   Overexposed. --The Photographer 21:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment You challenged me to find a better photo. Now that I've fixed it a bit, I would much rather see this photo (compo, specimen, angle) over the nominated but none of them are FPs IMO, both have tech flaws. --Cart (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
    Cart, lease, don't compare zoo or garden images with wildlife shots, that's just not fair. I traveled far away to have a chance to see a moose in its enviroment, I didn't go to the closet zoo were after paying 20 euro I can shot all animals I like Poco2 22:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course I'm not, don't be offended. That is a wild moose that has wandered into a garden from the forest to steal apples. They do that all the time in autumn. Sometimes the apples have been on the ground for a while so they have become fermented and we get drunk wild moose wobbeling around and some local hunter will have to come and shoot the moose. As you can see, that is a low garden fence. It is useless to keep the moose out of the garden, they just step right over it. Sweden is the country with most moose per forest area in the world. Here their natural habitat is in every forest patch between our houses and farms, so it is natural for them to get close to people and houses. We have to shoot about 100 000 of them each year to keep the damage they do to our forests at a reasonable level, in Alaska they shoot 7000 per year and Alaska is four times as big as Sweden. --Cart (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Most of our nature photos are specimen photos, with little artistic creativity, and so we value seeing a sharp clear image of a healthy typical animal or plant. Rarely we get beautiful compositions and beautiful light or we get interesting behaviour captured. Here is neither. The lack of existing moose FPs seems more to do with the arbitrary demographics of Commons photographers than any particularly difficulty finding/photographing one. We have better pics of similar mammals. -- Colin (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my discussion/reasons above. --Cart (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Poco2 20:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

File:21-224-5054 NNP Synevyr RB 18.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2018 at 20:07:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Brown tabby cat 2018 G1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 05:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Amanita frostiana (Peck) Sacc 750397.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2018 at 19:32:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Benedict Cumberbatch on the set of Doctor Strange.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 12:44:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Dernekamp, Feld -- 2018 -- 0050.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2018 at 15:47:20 (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 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 15:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice textural photo. I have tried similar views many times and failed, it's not as easy as it looks. --Cart (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 18:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 19:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Little is sharp. Charles (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Large sharp areas are impossible in such a shot. I speak from experience. --Cart (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry. With more sharpness the photograph becomes more restless. An aperture of f/11 is IMO more than enough. I tried several times more or less aperture and it didn't work, f/8 up to f/11 is IMO a good choice. Otherwise it becomes too unsharp or too restless. --XRay talk 04:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Charlesjsharp: Is this a joke or are you serious? --Code (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. --Code (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If the sharpness range would be really sharp it would be an F.P. for me.--Ermell (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose: very nice compo, but DOF could be better. --Ivar (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
      Comment Maybe with a TS-lens or so. But I don't think it's fair to demand it --A.Savin 13:27, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cart's experience, and ... it's texture. IMO that means the shortcomings of the DoF actually enhance it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose The image does have a certain something in terms of evocativeness, but I can't get past the lack of sharpness created by this effect. I know the use of a shallow DoF is done on purpose, but since the placing of the grass is so chaotic, it means that hardly any of them get any sharpness whatsoever, since none of them hit the shallow focus point perfectly. Looking at the straws, I can't find a single one that is sharp, even the ones that are supposed to be.--Peulle (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I know the argument of DoF, but I can't follow. I'm trying to identify the problem, but I can't. IMO a lot of straws are sharp (enough). And DoF is good with f/11 (and APS-C Sensor). More means more diffraction and loss of sharpness. --XRay talk 07:50, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @XRay: FWIW, I don't think DOF actually is the problem here. I think it might be that the sections that are +/- in focus are all concentrated in the lower half of the frame, so the fraction of out-of-focus background is pretty large. Moving the sharp sections higher up towards the center (by pointing the camera down a bit or shooting from a slightly lower position) might help – but then you'd probably have to deal with additional out-of-focus foreground … --El Grafo (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yep, placing the DoF in the middle and you'd end up with something like this. Messy. I didn't even want to upload this at first since it came out so bad (and this was my best try) but if it can serve as an example of what middle ground focus can do, so be it. --Cart (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Disregarding the discussion of DoF, like others, I like the idea, but I just don't find this that great a composition to move my eyes around. To anticipate a possible question of how it could be better, that would have solely to do with the combination of shapes and is nothing nearly simple enough to describe in theory - I have to judge each picture of this kind of motif by what happens when I look at it. I guess my taste and standards for what makes a great composition differ from many other voters here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much blur for a texture photography, or something special is missing. It might be "not so easy" for the photographers to achieve such kind of shots, but based on my emotion and pleasure to look at it, the result is just not outstanding -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness, per others. --Karelj (talk) 21:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Explorer (21243483680).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 02:32:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Jeffrey Pang - uploaded by Hike395 - nominated by Hike395
  •   Support -- — hike395 (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice view, but a little small for FP and too noisy, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really good composition and nice spot. If the technical quality was better, I would have supported the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The name should be describing the photo a bit better. These Flickr titles are seldom in line with Commons guidelines. --Cart (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose Great view, but seems a little unsharp overall. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Parque Eagle River, Anchorage, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-09-01, DD 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 21:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Charles: Indeed, the WB was too warm, forgot to fix that, new version uploaded --Poco2 11:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Better now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Too dark now, IMO. It doesn't seem likely those clouds would be that dark with so much light in the foreground. Could you move the sliders back a considerable distance toward the way it was? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, no problem, Ikan/Daniel step back so that the change is not significant, Poco2 08:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support What kind of salmon do we have here? :-)--Ermell (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support There's a tiny bit of CA (see note) when pixel peeping (300%+ of monitor), not enough not to support. --Trougnouf (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Waidhofen an der Ybbs Panorama 20180523.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 07:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

File:2018-05-28 23-32-45orage-belfort.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 18:17:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

File:2018-05-28 23-41-31orage-belfort.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2018 at 18:15:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose In this photo the non-corrected buildings are too prominent, there is even a small something in the upper right corner. Even if this network of flashes is spectacular, the sky and lightning in the other photo create a better image composition. --Cart (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - The lightning is spectacular. I actually like the artistry of not doing a perspective correction in this instance, because it adds to the feeling of chaos - literally, of disorder. I'll still support if you do a perspective correction, though. I do think there should be a crop on the right side to eliminate the corner Cart refers to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart.--Peulle (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Puente sobre el río Nenana, Healy, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 47.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 20:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Colin: Please fix your signature. Yann (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Aaargh. I've caught it from Charles. Excess tildes. Probably fatal. *cough* -- Colin (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 12:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Poco2 16:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Panorama of Agüimes, May 2018.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 20:25:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Spain
  •   Info Panorama of Agüimes, Gran Canaria, offering an impression of traditional Canarian architecture. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me; it's seems a fairly uninteresting town in fairly ordinary light conditions.--Peulle (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree. It's a pretty view, but the crops on the left and right feel arbitrary to me and the sky could use some clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment interesting, I really did expect the image to face a friendlier welcome here. I really like this picture for several reasons: There are several parallel horizontal "layers"; the image is arranged (roughly) according to the rule of thirds, the town's generally rather picturesque to me; weather and lighting are finally as one might hope for - in fact I visited this spot on different days (and passed it on even more occasions) because the weather was rather dull most of the time. But well, sometimes it's spinning the roulette wheel...   --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info ok, I've redeveloped the raw to make the image a bit more vibrant (and to make the nom look more like the situation actually was. I may have been too cautious first), pinging Peulle, Ikan Kekek. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Much nicer but while good, still not an outstanding composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Really, this unusual presentation wows me more than your other current mainstreamlike nomination that seems somewhat sterile to me. --Milseburg (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Moderate support I wish the background could have been a bit sharper, but this works for me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination ok, it was worth a shot... double meaning intended ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Waidhofen an der Ybbs Pfarrkirche Innenraum 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 05:21:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
  •   Info Interior of the parish church Waidhofen an der Ybbs, Lower Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Maybe you could crop slightly more at the bottom of the picture frame, but that's an artist's choice. Very pretty and well-captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very good quality and very nice although maybe not perfectly symmetrical. Would get my support instantly but I'd appreciate it if you'd add some more technical information (how many pictures/rows/columns, HDR and so on, see here for example - Commons is about sharing skills and knowledge). By the way I don't think that {{LargeImage}} is necessary here. --Code (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Code: There are 36 individual pictures in total, 3 rows and 3 columns with 4 exposures (+2/0/-2/-4), processed with PTGui and Lightroom. I use {{LargeImage}} whenever an image is larger than 50 MPix – this is the general recommendation. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks. --Code (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings

File:Tunnel Belliard, coming out on Rue de la Loi.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 14:44:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Belgium

File:NSB Di 4 Nattog Saltfjellet.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2018 at 21:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Why ? Don't you like your picture ? or would you have preferred someone else nominate your work ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Because I'm obviously biased. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail Vehicles

File:Aerial view of Golden Gate Bridge from the south dllu.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 09:03:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • It was a Cessna 172M. My coworker graciously offered me a ride in his plane. Drones are prohibited over the Golden Gate Bridge. Since the Cessna was moving, I couldn't quite line up the bridge perfectly, but I think I got it fairly close. dllu (t,c) 10:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'll support it as a VI, but I don't think the rendering of the bridge is quite good enough for FP - sorry. It just lacks the crispness we tend to see in other featured photographs.--Peulle (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle; I also think the WB is a little on the warm side, and those boat wakes are a little distracting. Under different circumstances, though, I think a photo like this could be featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think the boat wakes can be helped. Take a look at Category:Golden_Gate_Bridge_aerial_photographs. Boats, or boat wakes, can be seen in every photo. It is a rather popular bridge and there's a lot of boat traffic when the weather is good enough for aerial photography.

dllu (t,c) 21:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it could be helped; perhaps by flying out shortly after dawn (especially at this time of year) when there aren't likely (IMO) to be many people pleasureboating. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think there's anything wrong with the crispness: aerial photography is often not as good as this. I do agree the WB/colour looks warm, though not sure when it was taken (the timestamp is surely wrong). I'd support if the WB is correct or fixed.
  • Ah, I didn't spot the "(UTC)". Not perhaps very helpful for the file description - a local time would be useful. Well, if you think the warmth is due to the time-of-day then I guess I   Support. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I use UTC for my photos because I'm tired of having to change the clock in my camera every time I travel to a different time zone, and every time daylight savings time changes. Besides, all timestamps on Wikimedia Commons are in UTC. I suppose I could add to my upload script the ability to convert it to local time since I include GPS coordinates with every file. dllu (t,c) 00:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • That would be helpful. The fact that Commons timestamps are UTC is irrelevant -- we need a universal time for knowing which actions occurred before which, regardless of where the person was located. But a photograph, if it shows a time at all, should be local time. -- Colin (talk) 07:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the straight lines and the static composition works well for me (including the waves). The wb is warm but still ok. Alexander Leisser (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Unusual view. Thanks you for this image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 06:52, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The perspective is outstanding and the shooting conditions were not usual. I want have the full shadow there, but this isn't really hurt me. --Milseburg (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 12:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Wu Tingfang LOC ggbain.00382.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2018 at 09:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

File:20180602 FIFA Friendly Match Austria vs. Germany Rainer Pariasek 850 0540.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2018 at 18:54:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Another ORF sports anchorman posing for me prior to the friendly match of Austria versus Germany yesterday ending with a 2:1 victory for Austria. -- Granada (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support You must be very good-looking to get guys to smile at you like that. ;) The crisp white on white on white of the photo makes it special. The pink blob is a small minus but it matches his lips so overall ok. --Cart (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cart. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like that sly smile. Daniel Case (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I think you should keep an eye on Rainer Pariasek.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Are we really going to feature a 6 MPix picture out of a 46 MPix camera? It's getting harder to understand the FP standards these days... --Code (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Granada, any comment about this? It's an excellent portrait, but it's not a photo of a player in action, so why can't it be bigger? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment When preparing the camera for the first shots of this evening I set the aperture to f/3.5 to still have a low enough ISO. But even at f/3.5 it has a very shallow DoF at its full resolution of nearly uncropped 46MP. The right eye is pin sharp but the nosetip and the quite exposed left ear looked strange to my eyes when pixel-peeping at 100%, so I decided to downscale it for upload. --Granada (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Don't rules say that photos shouldn't be QIs if they are downscaled to look sharper? People shouldn't be penalizing a humongous photo because it's not sharp at the very largest size (maybe with the exception of some panoramas and such). Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is clearly against the rules. The supporters above should reconsider their votes. How could we expect anybody to upload pictures at full size if we're going to promote this one? Regarding Granadas concerns it's perfectly fine not to have everything in focus here. A shallow DoF is quite a normal thing in portrait photography. We already had this discussion several times. I'll consider changing my vote to support after a higher resolution version has been uploaded because it's a very good portrait otherwise. --Code (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  CommentDownsampling images of living persons is even advised under certain circumstances, so this was not at all against the rules. --Granada (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, if full resolution could be offensive, but not in order to appear of better quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I have to agree with Code. It's against the rules. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I cite the rules: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality. Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file. Downsampling images of living persons is advisable if the images would otherwise show details of the body (e. g. skin, teeth) in unacceptable magnification, which could be considered offensive or violate the person's rights.". Please could someone update the rules so that they strictly prohibit any downsampling? And remove that sentence about living people. Thanks in advance. --Granada (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
btw: it now has its full resolution. --Granada (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Support reinstated. IMO, irrespective of questions about rules, the photo is so much more impressive this way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ikan, please strike your 'Oppose' then, you can't have both. --Cart (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the oversight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support After the higher resolution version was uploaded. --Code (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 12:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Black bearded man smiling, 2442565.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 16:38:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Leroy Skalstad, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not special enough for me. The quality can be discussed but mostly it's that I'm not really wowed. I think I might be more impressed if it was somebody famous or in a special setting; as it is, it's just a portrait of a guy with a beard.--Peulle (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The background seems to have posterization lines, except that when I look at the picture at full size, they disappear. Do you understand what's going on? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The grey gradient of the background added in post-process around the head seems to cover part of the hair and the ear, especially on the left side. The feather option of the selection before creating the blur was maybe not well adjusted. In this case, one must generally proceed in several successive stages. It looks like too much of the material have been trapped in the process -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Ikan is the image you see with "posterization lines" simply the full size JPG resized by your browser to fit the screen, or is it a scaled down version generated by MediWiki (like the above "thumbnail" or preview size). If the latter, then we are at the mercy of the MediaWiki settings wrt how much jpg-compression and sharpening they apply when generating thumbnails. -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • They're like curved striations around his head, and they are visible when the full JPG is resized to fit completely on screen and when I increase the size of that by as much as 300%, but not when I view the file at full size. Strange, I don't think I've seen another instance of this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The unfortunate result is that it's hard for me to appraise this photo because I can't perceive the whole composition at full size, but it looks damaged at smaller sizes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I see the ripple effect as you describe. Strange. Posterisation in an monocolour graduation is an unfortunately common problem and I suspect mostly due to the limitations of 8-bit JPG and our non-HDR monitors. Sometimes it can be hidden by applying a little noise. It isn't necessarily due to an artificial post-process graduation, as it can occur a direct photo of light graduating (e.g. clear blue sky). -- Colin (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately there do seem to be retouching issues with the outline of the head. -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my comment above. This is a nice studio photograph, with awesome lighting, and nice facial expression. The size is huge (31 Mpx) and the eyes get sharp at 66%. Too bad the post-treatment stage was sloppy -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Basile Morin: How do you know it is a "studio" picture? According to the source, this comes from a series of homeless people portraits. Of course, the man posed, but I don't see any information about a studio. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yann, "studio shot or photo" is only a photography term. It means just about any photo where the person is posing under some kind of controlled circumstances. It can be as simple as letting someone sit on a chair by a window to be able to control where the light comes from. The photo session doesn't have to be done in an actual photo studio. A series of "studio photos" of homeless people can easily be done say in a hall where they give out food to the homeless or someplace similar where those who are being photographed feel comfortable. --Cart (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Only a photography term? There is quite a difference between a casual pose, and a real studio set up, in term of light quality and potential photographic equipment... Yann (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes it is, but still many photographers use the term in this way to describe photos like this to tell them apart from other portraits like these: 1 2 3. I didn't invent this use, I'm just trying to explain it, so please don't shoot the messenger. ;) --Cart (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Cart. And yes, Yann, I believe it's a studio shot because it seems staged, and the light well controlled. Also remember you asked the same question on this nomination. But I'd like to insist on the very rush post-process here. If this treatment after shooting is not obvious to your eyes, look at this similar picture from the same artist. The background definitely got artificially blurred all around the face. This problem doesn't mean the picture you've downloaded is not beautiful, nor of great value, just maybe not the perfect candidate for FP. I've added a note. Also I think it would be interesting to mention in the description that this person is homeless. It makes the portrait even more interesting -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The source doesn't mention that this person is homeless, so it may create a privacy issue. But it is quite possible looking at the photographer's page. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Lopesan Baobab, Maspalomas, May 2018.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2018 at 20:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Spain
  •   Info As the sun wearily rises over Gran Canaria, most tourists are soundly asleep - except for some guys from Britain and Germany who had already gotten out of bed to reserve their sundbeds with towels (as seen on the right) or to take pictures of swimming pools during golden hour (not seen). All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The perfect symmetry in nearly every detail of this image and especially in its visible lines above and even below the water make it a great shot. --Granada (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yeah, that's splendid. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Once again: "I want your camera, your lenses and your travel budget." :) --Cart (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 21:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Uph, beautiful. Great job! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Shining -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool. --A.Savin 03:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Strong support When I saw this on QIC I knew I would be seeing it here soon. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The colors are well matched. wow Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --ArildV (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support "the towels" :-) --XRay talk 05:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Sound suppression water system test at KSC Launch Pad 39A.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2018 at 17:19:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • This is a top-down photo, you can't do perspective corrections on those without the result looking really weird. --Cart (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Please see en:Perspective (graphical) and en:Perspective control. The architectural photography where building verticals are absolutely vertical and parallel is itself a distortion and a form of "constructed perspective" that the eye would never see. It approximates reality only when the viewer is infinitely distant from the subject, and becomes increasingly unrealistic when very close to the subject -- hence some of our "corrected" images of buildings have bell or clock towers that look too large. It is also only valid when the viewing direction is perpendicular to a building (parallel to the ground), or close enough that we don't spot the error. Here, the view is most certainly angled down and we can't start to pretend it was ever parallel to the ground. There may be some en:Perspective distortion (photography) if an ultra-wide-angle lens produced an angle-of-view that is uncomfortably large, but there's no EXIF data for the image. -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment That's quite interesting. I think I see a dust spot, though, and some chroma noise ... would some small fixes be possible?--Peulle (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Might it possible to use some sort of distortion correction on something like this instead of perspective? Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. I don't think that a perspective correction would be good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Suisant7 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 12:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Río Savage, Parque nacional y reserva Denali, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-29, DD 96.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2018 at 16:50:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

File:ToroToro canyon 2017.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 06:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Bolivia
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Vaido Otsar - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I really like the claustrophobic feeling of being in the canyon, which is also quite an interesting sight. The lack of much sky in the picture is IMO an advantage in this regard. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Moderate support Seems to have been a little vigorously sharpened, but still good enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Oversharpened, as Daniel notes. I'm not getting the same feeling as Ikan, because this photo is taken above the canyon looking down, rather than in the canyon. I don't find it particularly 3-dimensional, hard to say why. Perhaps the constant fine detail or similar lighting throughout. -- Colin (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Thanks for your thoughtful consideration and comments. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shadow. Yann (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination. I think you guys have a point about oversharpening. This photo could have been processed better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Corvus corax sinuatus, Point Reyes National Seashore.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2018 at 19:36:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment Yes, I adjusted the shadows. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect (bird not totally sharp and the rocks are a little distracting) but the expression just makes it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 17:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes

File:Amurleopard (Panthera pardus) im Schnee.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 07:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info The background isn't sharpened at all in post editing. I just tried to control the contrast in post editing. Lighting conditions were weak and I focused the light on the animal. Alexander Leisser (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There's also very clear and strong magenta CA, for example at the snow's margin just in front of the leopard. I like the drama of the shot, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info The magenta CA is from the window I shot through and I'm afraid not editible at all. Alexander Leisser (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You use the color sampler in the CA section of Lightroom to single out and remove magenta CA. One click and it's done. If I had the raw file I could probably do something with it. Something like this --Cart (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral pending possible resolution of noted technical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As a picture of a wild animal it might stand a chance. Charles (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It would be nice to correct the vignetting : dark corners -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rbrechko (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, since it doesn't seem that it will be edited. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. --Cart (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Vignetting too much visible -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Birdhouses on Sidney Spit, Sidney Island, British Columbia, Canada 05.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 05:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Birdhouses on Sidney Spit, Sidney Island, Canada. All by -- Podzemnik (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support well executed, interesting - and wowy --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Stark and interesting. The bird in flight is, on the surface, distracting, but it's something that should be in the picture. Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Moderate support Some minor technical issues like small halos and resolution. But I like the composition very much. --XRay talk 05:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Would like to be a bird there --Schnobby (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 12:08, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Something different Poco2 17:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Moose in Grand Teton National Park 3 (8007698498).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 11:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info A female moose grazing for water plants in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming, USA. Created by Tony Hisgett - uploaded by Tm - nominated by W.carter -- Cart (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This is the kind of beautiful light, compo, detail and specimen I want in a moose FP. I like that this moose is photographed in the water. They eat just about any green growing things they can get hold of, including water plants. They are good swimmers and in the Stockholm archipelago you can see them swimming between the (24,000) islands looking like some Swedish versions of Basile's buffaloes. -- Cart (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Outstanding! -- P999 (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'll just ignore this nom and assume that you are not trying to make a point here. --Poco2 20:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Poco: Do as you whish, but you asked me to look for better moose photos, I did and stumbled upon this. I really like it so I can't see why I can't nominate it. I honestly have you to thank for finding it, if you hadn't challenged me to come up with something better (I can't resist a challenge as Colin also learned), I wouldn't have found this. There are no sneaky thoughts behind this, that is not my style. I'm too blunt to have any hidden agendas. You know that if I find a photo I think is worthy of an FP, I will nominate it as I have done many times before. It's as simple as that. Once again thanks for the push to find this. :) --Cart (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Poco you wrote "I challenge you to find out something better out there." This is standard "find great picture -> nominate it at FP". The only person who seems to be making a point is you. -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Panoramic sunset in Conques 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 08:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places#France

File:Seriema cariamidae.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 07:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Even if Basile has found a way to focus stack live bugs, I don't think we can expect the same with live birds unless you sedate them. ;) --Cart (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Cart, that would be perfectly possible with a tripod if the subject is static. This wildlife shot was focus-stacked for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And I could probably stack the neighbor's lazy dog too, but I don't think we should demand it for all living animals. --Cart (talk) 08:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure. But only the eyes in focus, at least -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose poor quality - see the eye. Charles (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Focus is wrong and composition awkward (cut feathers on top + too much space on the left) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my comments - not done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

File:ET Gondar asv2018-02 img18 Fasil Ghebbi.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2018 at 14:37:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Eucomis montana, Ananasplant, Kuiflelie d.j.b 02.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2018 at 16:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Eucomis montana #Family Asparagaceae
  •   Info Eucomis montana. Beautiful dark red flared old bulbs of Eucomis montana which have grown partially above the ground. The bulbs are not hardy in the Netherlands and must be overwintered frost-free. What I also like about this picture is the irregularly shaped top of the old spheres where the new shoot grows. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Makes a nice symmetrical abstraction. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Philip von Schantz would agree. --Cart (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not with the blurred foreground. Charles (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very pretty bulbs and might be a good VI, but it doesn't fully work for me, maybe mostly because of the blurred foreground Charles refers to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Both O.K. --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. --Karelj (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Support--Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Also good. --Cart (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Better :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Tighter composition, but otherwise, my remarks above apply. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Both O.K. --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:27, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. --Karelj (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Wernberg Sternberg Pfarrkirche hl Georg Vorhalle 19032017 6743.jpg, not featured