Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2019

Contents

File:Papión chacma (Papio ursinus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 65.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2019 at 22:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Neutral now per below--BoothSift 04:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 06:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry for being the party pooper again, but long focal length or not, that looks pretty noisy for a 5DS R at 400 ISO. It's mostly luminance noise, so one might forgive it, but in combination with the over-all softness and remnants of CA (I blame the 2x TC), I'm less than wowed by the quality. It's not bad and actually looks quite OK at screen size, it's just not great. And the same is true for the content: It's not bad at all, but I wouldn't call it outstanding considering what else we've got. --El Grafo (talk) 08:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 11:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a bit per El Grafo, but what is bothering me more is that the two are partly obscured by the tree so we don't get a good view of their play. – Lucas 06:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the composition and size/sharpness of the subject. Charles (talk) 17:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The con arguments are good. I'm no longer sure, so I've struck out my vote and am likely to abstain from voting. I like the photo, but I don't know for sure that it should be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the branches way too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm fine with the luma noise in the background, but the overall softness is a bit disturbing and I'd also blame the TC for that. --Granada (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That's the tele converter. --Granada (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /BoothSift 22:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Marmora Formation closeup1.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2019 at 17:35:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done - recategorized --СССР (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This would have to work for me as an abstract composition of lines and textures; I analyse it almost as if I were looking at an abstract painting that I want to have a good linear arabesque, though the textures help and make it a bit of a bas relief. It's a great idea, but the lines are not interesting enough to me for me to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above--BoothSift 04:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. It would make a good background image for design purposes though. Cmao20 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Vulphere 12:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Just a little unsharper than it should be. Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination СССР (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Taubenturm-mit-Schnee.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 07:19:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by dktue - uploaded by dktue - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dktue (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm sorry, the composition feels random to me. The top of the dovecote is cropped out, the pigeons are flying every which way, and I feel like for some balance, there should be more room on the left, too. I do like the view straight into the distance, but it's not enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Only 2 active nominations per user are allowed. See Commons:Featured picture candidates n11. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Dktue, per above. Please select the two nominations you wish to keep and {{withdraw}} the surplus or your latest nomination(s) will be deleted for you. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination is this the way to withdraw this nomination? --Dktue (talk) 08:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes that is totally correct. You are learning. Welcome to the FPC gang. :-) --Cart (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 07:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Kyiv Express Tram 757 2019 G1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 11:39:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition and alignment with the road but the light is not good enough and there are distractions like the horizontal wire going across the tram and the sky reflection in the windshield making it hard to read the display. – Lucas 13:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas, the composition is very nice but the light for me is no more than adequate. Personally I think this is a QI but not an FP. I can see why you nominated it though. Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow.--Peulle (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lacking in wow IMO--BoothSift 02:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too ordinary + distractions + the unpleasant reflection on the windshield. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 07:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Beautiful Balthali Village.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 06:18:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Striked support per below. – Lucas 07:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a beautiful view but I have a few issues with it. a) The resolution isn't very high for a 2019 FP landscape; b) I find the plants in the foreground a bit distracting; c) Are these colours really natural? I'm not saying they necessarily aren't, but I've never seen a landscape that looked quite like this. Cmao20 (talk) 07:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose idem ̃--Mimihitam (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 12:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I have no problems with the composition; as far as I'm concerned, this is a beautiful picture. However, as Cmao20 said, it's small for a 2019 Featured Picture nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wilfredor (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others--BoothSift 05:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not one of the best images on Commons, IMO. For instance, the resolution is quite low for a landscape shot.--Peulle (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Piotr Bart (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Alternative image

 

  •   Comment Higher version--Biplab Anand (Talk) 06:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Not sharp enough and probably oversaturated, but if this is the original resolution, you should _always_ provide full resolution at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •  N Biplab Anand, this is not how this should be done. Please just rename the original file, add the geocode there (by copying the code from one to the other) and simply upload a new version (!) with higher resolution and maybe ping affected voters about the change. No need for a new file or an alternative candidate here. Alternative candidates are for substancial edits or other versions that people might disagree over, not for simple corrections. – Lucas 10:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment User:Lucasbosch Thanks for your comment. I'll keep your suggestion in my mind before nominating new images for the FPC. Thanks--Biplab Anand (Talk) 10:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination--Biplab Anand (Talk) 10:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a potential here, may be with a better processing from RAW. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
+1 Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 07:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Death Valley view from Zabriskie Point with people 2013.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2019 at 15:33:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment I full agree. --Hockei (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment They are also providing an excellent diagonal counterpoint to the peak up right. --Cart (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 24 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /BoothSift 16:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/United States

File:Periodic table cup cakes 2.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 17:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is a test NOM, it checks for redirects

test set nomEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 06:58:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
  •   Info created by Eatcha - uploaded by Eatcha - nominated by Eatcha --   06:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info ——— This is a test nomination, I'm trying to automate the sets nomination but no promises.
  •   Question ——— How do you store the sets ? I don't see any sets at Commons:Featured pictures . You can answer here.——   06:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The files in a set are all displayed in the normal galleries. The set designation is just for the nomination, after that all the files included are treated as normal FPs. Example: The two images in this set are stored/displayed at Commons:Featured pictures/Objects. My guess it that you will not be able to automate this since the process is far to complicated. The set nom is placed in the log and chronological, not visible in Commons:Featured pictures, list and then the files are extracted manually to be labled with the assessment and placed in the right gallery. --Cart (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    @W.carter:, any example where the set had images from different categories ?? Eatcha (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not that I can think of. The idea with a set is that the images belong together and that usually means that they belong in the same category. --Cart (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think any set that required different categories would fail the set criteria. I think that if images in a set could stand alone, treat them as normal FPs, but in some cases special handling would be required for the gallery. For instance, it's something like a 5 x 8 mosaic scan of a very large painting, it would be better to just have a downsampled version of the full painting in the gallery. -- King of ♠ 02:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination This nomination will be archived by the bot —— Eatcha (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Daenerys.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 16:05:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Vathanna - uploaded by User:e.3 - nominated by E.3 -- E.3 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- E.3 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Request Please fix the author information in this nomination (Deviantart never creates anything) and the link to deviantart.com on the file page is broken. – Lucas 16:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment it looks like it was taken down by the artist, a reverse image search doesn't reveal it. But as we can see it was published by Vathanna under the correct license in January. --E.3 (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This has only 0.8 MP, far below the minimum of 2 MP per the guidelines and there are no strong mitigating reasons. I'm loosely familiar with fanart and this doesn't seem special at all. – Lucas 17:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low resolution -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Too far below the 2Mpx minimum size and there are no strong mitigating reasons. Please read the rules at COM:FPC more carefully before the next nomination. --Cart (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  •   Comment Cart, just to be correct and you likely know this already: when there are "strong mitigating reasons" the 2 MP minimum can be ignored so it should be mentioned in a FPX reason that the nom fails both aspects. – Lucas 20:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes I know, but since you had already mentioned it above, I didn't think there was any reason to bring it up again. To keep things formal per your recommendation, I've added it now. It is now mentioned three times in the nom; a bit of overkill IMO. If you think a text in an FPX template is inadequate, please feel free to substitute it with a text of your own. Improving how this forum works is never wrong. --Cart (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Trimeresurus gumprechti, Gumprecht’s pit viper (female) - Phu Suan Sai National Park (46711073485).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 21:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Piotr Bart: I don't think this model is supported by the bot. You should use {{s|Strong support}} instead. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: We tested most of these versions after the repair of the Bot and it counted them just fine. Some testing and tweaking might still have to be done, but it looks as though it's ok to use the strong and weak votes now. The goal is to get them all working. --Cart (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like the images that would have been on the covers of those short hardback science books my parents always gave us at Christmas and birthdays when I was a kid. Daniel Case (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 05:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Reptiles

File:Spermophilus lateralis, Bryce Canyon National Park, USA.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2019 at 14:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created by KipRobinson - uploaded by KipRobinson - nominated by KipRobinson -- Kiprobinson (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiprobinson (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Small and cute.--Vulphere 14:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I so wish I could support this, but I don't think the sharpness on the squirrel is quite good enough, especially seeing it's so small in the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Squirrel not in focus --Dktue (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above Charles (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I wish I could support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per others--BoothSift 23:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others and too centered composition. – Lucas 08:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very strong oppose, unsharp area is way too distracting even at thumb. Nominator really needs to take the hint from all these opposes ... Daniel Case (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.06.05.-34-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Westliche Keiljungfer-Maennchen.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2019 at 20:23:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Mae Carol Jemison.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2019 at 15:42:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by NASA, uploaded by Coffeeandcrumbs, nominated by Yann (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support American engineer, physician and NASA astronaut. She became the first black woman to travel in space when she served as an astronaut aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour. -- Yann (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support So radiant, she is probably the first astronaut who has managed to look good in that dreadful orange outfit. --Cart (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Yez, but look at ze cut, ze lines! No fitting, no flattering for figure. Alors, c'est 'ideous!" --Cart (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --   18:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a great portrait. If it were a portrait of Jane Doe, I'd support it. But what a historically important person, too! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 23:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Millennium bug (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support because she's the first black female astronaut. No other particular historical FP value IMO, since the image doesn't stand out among the others in any other way.--Peulle (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support At first I thought this was a portrait of Michael Burnham. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Nezara viridula f. torquata MHNT.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2019 at 23:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Charlesjsharp: As Cmao20 notes, the insect is fairly small. --BoothSift 05:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I know it is. Charles (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The image is interesting for the egg of the fly. It is necessary to notice on the head of the animal a white spot which is an egg of Trichopoda. The larva will parasitize the host and kill him. Thanks to Boothsift for this nomination. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support yes, the egg of the parasitic fly gives value to the image and makes it FPworth imo. --Cayambe (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cayambe --Llez (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:37, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /BoothSift 01:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Basilica di San Pietro in Vaticano September 2015-1a.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 12:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Cachoeira da Velha1.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 17:27:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Karen Souza de Andrade Gonzaga - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a pretty basic view and predictable composition with no technical merits. It needs some sharpening, it has some noise, shadows are a bit too contrasty, geolocation is pretty much expected for landscape FPs. – Lucas 19:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I don't mind this one, yes the composition is pretty predictable but it does show off the waterfall well. However, I agree about the sharpening and the noise. Cmao20 (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Cmao20 --BoothSift 02:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. Good compared to an average photo but not one of the best on the site and would have at least a 50/50 chance to fail QIC if nominated there, I think (I could be wrong on that). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per boys above. I'm more incline to oppose though. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I will be more general in gender OR more specific on names next time. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 12:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 03:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Cascada cip.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 17:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Ciprianpe - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, bad smartphone quality, water is neither frozen nor well blurred, I could go on. Arion, please take more care examining the photos you nominate. I see no improvement in your judgement despite many efforts of us to call you out on this, and pretty soon the main thing to be featured is your username in the administrator noticeboard. You are doing a disservice to the commmunity. – Lucas 19:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't much like the composition, it seems a little bit random. Plus the detail at full-res is not very good, as one might expect from a smartphone photo. It probably really isn't worth nominating smartphone pics, Arion, it's very difficult for them to hit the pixel-level detail we look for at FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Does not meet my requirements --BoothSift 02:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pretty strongly   Oppose per others. What criteria are you using, Arion? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: He probably just looks at the thumbnail and if that looks good enough, then he nominates. At least that's what I conclude from his nominations. --BoothSift 02:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't want to be mean but two 9 and 11 yo local boys in Yukon I'm teaching some photography basics would be able to find better composition, if nothing else, after the first week of practice. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 12:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shooting at 1/350 was the right idea; unfortunately nothing else about this was. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 03:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Tari Melinting 3.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 11:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Madereza - uploaded by Madereza - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately, her hands and flag (?) are out of focus. This is probably unavoidable due to the aperture but takes too much 'wow' away. --MB-one (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per above. Cmao20 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice portrait. --Yann (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - It's a very nice picture. Of course there's some motion blur - she's dancing! She is moving her hands and moving a cloth. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per MB-one and the white flag in the background sits too close to her. – LucasT 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per MB-one --Fischer.H (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination--Mimihitam (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

File:68-104-9007 Kamianets-Podilskyi Fortress RB 18 2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 23:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info Kamianets-Podilskyi Castle, City of Kamianets-Podilskyi, Khmelnytskyi Oblast, Ukraine. Created by Rbrechko - uploaded by Rbrechko - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The huge lens flare distracts me too much. An angle with raking light and no sun in the picture might work better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain I don't wish to vote on this image--BoothSift 05:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Images with spectacular photo effects always do well at WLM, but such lens flares are not a quality mark for an FP. --Cart (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The lens flares are hidden enough to not detract me. I wish the resolution was better/less smudgy pixels but I'll let it pass for the good mood. – Lucas 11:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Seems a bit low on details and somewhat blurry in areas of same colors like the grass. The huge lens flare is huge - don't know what to think of it. --Granada (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The lens flare and moody lighting that the sunset yields seem more like (very nice) features to me. Would be quite bland otherwise. - Benh (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • sunrise it seems. My mistake. - Benh (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Benh. That's what I thought when I nominated it for FP. Others may of course disagree, but I don't think lens flare should always be dismissed as a technical failing. Certainly it should usually be corrected, but in my view it's possible to use lens flare as a creative effect. Cmao20 (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sunset images, a cake full of cream. Who doesn’t like it but you don’t taste the cake --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting discussion ;–). In this particular case, IMHO the lens flares are OK, they don’t distract me. --Aristeas (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 10:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --   13:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 12:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I’m not wowed -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The dawning sun is a distraction from an otherwise interesting angle on the castle. Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Yes, there's some lens flare, but it's mostly hidden by a nice starburst effect. I think I'd prefer a slightly less centered composition thoug. --El Grafo (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great Photo!David290 (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /BoothSift 23:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Colonial House in Margarita Island (Interior).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2019 at 18:36:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Venezuela
  •   Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice to see a photo from Venezuela, but it does not have anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Michielverbeek and the left/right crop is not good IMHO. – Lucas 20:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I disagree with the opposers. This photo has interesting forms in addition to having an atmosphere and serving as social commentary. And I'm fine with the crops, because the result is a composition that's good to move one's eyes around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I did'n get the link to the social commentary. Millennium bug (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's rundown, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others--BoothSift 05:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 09:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Great potential, but the crops at left and right are not very good. If you can't have more, then focus instead on the door and the TV. The plastic chairs do not fit the rest of the scene. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Kind of cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Séverine, debout, un poing sur la hanche - Nadar.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 21:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by | - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Rather an imperious pose. Cmao20 (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice resolution, it's got wow, great restoration work. Thanks Adam for your contributions, they're really valuable for the project! --Podzemnik (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow!!! --BoothSift 02:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite excellent, per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 12:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - per others. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting framing ... looks almost like it was done with a modern smartphone's wallpaper in mind. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good restoration, but I doubt the original picture was that much yellowish. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yann: Gallica is usually pretty accurate with its colours. Check the original. I've corrected for fading a bit, but tried to keep similar colours. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The reproduction from the picture now may be OK, but the yellowish tone is not. It is also a bit too dark. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 10:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Mapa de Colombia (relieve).svgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 05:21:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  1. The different strokes for the different kinds of border are missing from the legend (they are explained in File:Colombia Mapa Oficial.svg: strong solid = international border, dot-dash = disputed border, dashed = claimed ...). Either add them to the legend or simplify to a single style.
  2. The file description page of File:Colombia Mapa Oficial.svg is much clearer when it comes to listing the sources. Information about where the elevation and bathymetry data comes from appears to be missing?
  3. Which map projection/CRS was used here? Please at least mention this in the file description, ideally with an EPSG code or some other kind of unambiguious identifier.
  4. There are some avoidable collisions of labels (for example, LLANURA DEL PACÍFICO collides with Cerro Calima and many other peaks of the CORDILLERA OCCIDENTAL). With careful manual placement, most of these collisions should be resolvable. Yes, that's tedious work, but imho this kind of attention to detail is needed for a map that is considered "outstandingly good".
  5. The label Páramo de Sonsón @ 6°N, 75.5°W appears to be partially covered by the 3000-4000m terrain layer.
Otherwise I'd say this is really close to what I'd expect to see in a printed atlas! --El Grafo (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   needs some work per El Grafo and here are my additional pain points:
  1. The use of blurred shadows below the text is IMHO ugly and makes it harder to read especially in smaller font sizes. Text shadows belong on birthday cards only. edit: seems to be an artifact of Firefox rendering
  2. Often the text is colored in such a way to blend in with the background too much, e.g. blue text on water and brown text on high elevations colored in brown
  3. I don't know the unit msnm, I would only use SI unit meter here and put the rest as plain text.
  4. Most of the text is serif which is IMHO not really needed here (helping the eye to stay on the line) and sans serif fits better for graphics.
  5. In general there are too many different fonts used where one would be enough and make distinctions with bolding and italics and size of course.
  6. Typographic nitpick: the author information on the bottom right uses straigh ASCII quote marks ("...") instead of real quotes (“...”) or similar depending on the local conventions.
  7. The legend on the lower left covers up a lot of text along the shore.
  8. On many places text is placed over rivers and lakes that make it hard to read the text because of the many interfering lines.
  9. Some lines around the Mar Caribe area end in nothingness and one dash-dotted line goes off alignment with the shape it belongs to. – Lucas 14:07, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with most of Lucas' points, but regarding the first 3 points:
  1. I don't see any shadows around text, neither when I view the original SVG as rendered by Firefox nor in the png previews rendered by mediawiki.
  2. I'll have to disagree with that one. That's pretty much exactly how it is done nall the time for this kind of map in professional map making.
  3. msnm is the Spanish abbreviation for mean sea level - given that the rest of the legend is in Spanish as well I think that's OK
4. & 5. are to some degree a matter of taste and style. I'm not a cartographer myself, but I've seen plenty of printed maps that purposefully mix serif and sans serif fonts to make certain groups of labels easier to distinguish.
New point: RÍO META is labeled twice at ca. 6°N, 69°W. --El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Regarding the text shadow: I only see it in my Firefox and not when opened in Inkscape. I striked that point. – Lucas 09:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral pending resolution of above-noted issues. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain Until the discussion/resolution is finished--BoothSift 03:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thank you very much for the feedback and the proposed improvements, but they are too many and I do not have so much time to do them; I will improve it little by little and when it complies with what you have described I will propose this map again. Milenioscuro (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Suricata suricatta - Maroparque 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 05:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
  •   Info Three young Merkats; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 05:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose they are cute, but the light is not flattering, boring centered composition and the camera position makes this feel like a too ordinary shot (straight from the zoo even if you were in nature). – Lucas 06:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition, sharp enough. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, I don't think it's a great composition, and it doesn't help that the sand blends in so well with their fur. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Very nice IMO -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sort of too ordinary, but not enough for a oppose. The sand ruins it for a support--BoothSift 21:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The image is nice and sharp but I don't think the composition is that great. Cmao20 (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough, +1 for cuteness. Yann (talk) 15:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --   18:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral.--Vulphere 03:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas and Ikan. — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora

File:Alfredo Edel - Jules Massenet - Le mage.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 14:55:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Alfredo Edel - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Extraordinary. A beautiful illustration, and pinpoint sharp at 76 megapixels. Cmao20 (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. One comment: The file description says "poster or music cover", but the bottom of the picture contains the words "Affiches Américaines" and a name and address. Affiches are indeed posters, so this is a poster and not the cover of the score. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks! My French is... fairly bad, so I missed that. I've also copied over the size from the catalogue record. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Millennium bug (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 06:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. --Yann (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Madrid May 2014-9a.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 21:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I browsed through the gallery of the corresponding category and, with some minor lighting differences, the contrast in the pipes looks similar. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll take you on trust that it looked like this on the day. My rationale for support is more or less the same as your other pic - not necessarily pin-sharp at full-res but fine when downsampled (and a great composition). At any rate it's certainly a lot better than what I could do... Cmao20 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Change to   Neutral. I can indeed see the issues Ikan mentions including the red/green CA. I like the picture but I'm not entirely sure it matches up to some of our best church FPs at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 10:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --   13:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 23:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't love the picture quality (noise/unsharpness), and is that not red/green CA on the ceiling and wall? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan, it has smudgy pixels possibly from too much noise reduction and I'm not a fan of the multiple microphone wires crossing. – Lucas 20:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Ikan and Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /BoothSift 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Sagrada Familia March 2015-2a.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 21:45:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Ceiling of the Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona, Spain. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 03:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like it but in my opinion the technical quality is not up to the standard for church interiors here at FP. General lack of detail and sharpness, blown highlights. -- B2Belgium (talk) 06:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the composition and the light but imho there is too much noise. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   OpposePer B2Belgium.--Ermell (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per B2Belgium, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support (Can I use this template now? Happy to change it if I can't.) The criticisms about technical quality are valid, not that it's bad but that it isn't quite up to the level of some FP church interiors. That said, I downsampled it to 2200px across - which is 7 mpx and still meets FP size requirements - and it looks perfectly sharp and without any visible noise. On that basis I think I can give it a qualified support considering what an amazing interior it is. Cmao20 (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah@Cmao20  18:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 10:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --   13:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per B2Belgium --Llez (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per B2Belgium --Fischer.H (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I think we can do better in 2019. If I should guess, it's a hand hold shot at high ISO that has been sharpened, shadows brought up and then denoised quite heavily. The detailes are kind of washed out. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, it's most likely handheld with high ISO just like the other nomination, but with missing metadata in this case. – Lucas 20:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support @B2Belgium: Please also take a look at the 6MP Version --Habitator terrae 🌍 21:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I do like this but there are some aspects, like the highlights, that I would like to know things like the exposure, that are normally listed in the metadata but aren't here, which would help me decide if they were avoidable or not. Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /BoothSift 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Image:Trinkende Taube am Neptunbrunnen in Tübingen 2019.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2019 at 18:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by Dktue (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC) - uploaded by Dktue (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC) - nominated by Dktue -- Dktue (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dktue (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Cute picture. I don't know if others would agree, but I don't see what the blurry background on the lower right adds to the photo and would suggest cropping most or maybe all of it out, leaving the photo in portrait format. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment per Ikan, the quality of the X-T3 is good enough to try a tight crop (a 4:3 portrait has 13 MP, see note). I wish there was even more visible to the left, though. – Lucas 20:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would like to second Ikan’s and Lucas’ hints. --Aristeas (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with all comments here.--Vulphere 10:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I uploaded an updated version -- How do I update this vote? --Dktue (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in favor of the alternative, per Ikan. – Lucas 20:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in favor of the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in favor of the alternative. --BoothSift 02:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- in favor of alternative Piotr Bart (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Support Thanks Yann for editing in the alternative and now I'm very jealous of you for this camera ... – Lucas 18:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes. Very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Better. --BoothSift 02:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The picture is good, but the description is very poor: no species, no geolocation, no EXIF --Llez (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral sharp, but the background doesn't work. Charles (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Llez: I added the geolocation and EXIF as well as the species of the pigeon (Columba livia domestica). --Dktue (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Support OK now --Llez (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment A successful recording, but still can not convince me.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Piotr Bart (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --David290 (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds
The chosen alternative is: File:Trinkende Taube am Neptunbrunnen in Tübingen 2019 cropped.jpg

File:2017.05.06.-01-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Listspinne-Weibchen.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2019 at 14:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida

File:St.Georgen Ordenskirche Orgel 3240051efs-PSD.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2019 at 08:17:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Pipe organ of the Ordenskirche St. Georgen in Bayreuth. all by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great as usual, although it's a shame about all the wires. Cmao20 (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 10:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful, I don't mind the wires, though I'd love to see the bottom of the chandelier - but then it would be a different picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --   13:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Wires, sorry. – Lucas 18:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 23:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Llez (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very beautiful. We have to blame the resposible people for that wires, not the poor photographer. ;-) --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Bratislava Relaxing Park Bench 01.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 05:50:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
  •   Info Here is something that should make you smile: a relaxing park bench in Bratislava, Slovakia. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not so special for me since the wooden parts of many public benches are removed during winter here in Sweden. Disregarding that, I don't think this is the best light/angle to shoot it in, most of the details in the cast iron can't be seen and you get that big distracting shadow upper left. It would also have been very easy to merge two shots of this to get both parts of the bench sharp. --Cart (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart – LucasT 09:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Desastre de Brumadinho.gifEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 12:46:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Certainly not at FPC level. Yann (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:India Gate - Delhi (37282946605).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 15:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because as per above comments. Yann (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Mejsene fodres-4.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 07:25:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • +1 FPC is also about you being able to select the best image and nominate it. If you can't decide, please ask some friends or at the COM:CRIT first. This is not the way to do it. --Cart (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The resolution isn't very high and the highlights should be toned down a bit, but I really like the shot in other respects; well captured, good wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 09:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice capture but the technical quality is too poor and the background behind the bird is distracting. Charles (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 03:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect image quality but the dynamism makes up for it. – Lucas 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with Lucas. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Lucas. --Aristeas (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment several believe the picture is not perfect, how to improve such photos? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Although I've never managed a shot like this (not enough patiience), for me your set up (on a tripod) would involve making sure the background was dark - and reducing shutter speed to allow lower ISO and higher F no. 1/8000 sec is not really needed. You have frozen the wing motion but F3.2 has still resulted in an out-of focus head.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) 11:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Paridae_(Tits)

File:Paalisõlm.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 21:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created & uploaded Jaan Künnap - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Good VI, but I am not getting why it should be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is very useful, I guess. However, FP is not only about usefulness, it must be somewhat interesting/wowing and this frankly fails to do that.--BoothSift 23:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan and Boothsift. Cmao20 (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Also: Without trying to actually replicate this knot, I'm really wondering how you get from step 2 (top right) to step 3 (center). The image is not really doing a good job in explaining the knot to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 08:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I tried this myself and the switch from step 2 to 3 is done by pulling the loose end in such a way that it is taught and the loop flips over to the other side. Per El Grafo this is a confusing move and the center image could very well be the starting point (this is how I've always tied this knot), removing the top row. With this arrangement of 5 it's also not 100 % clear what the order is supposed to be for people of different cultures viewing the image. Most importantly, this knot has two variants depending on the loose end being inside the main loop at the end (more dangerous to get opened over time as the end can easily get pushed in by the object the rope is tied to) or outside (safer and recommended version). An image showing the dangerous version should acknowledge this visually and/or in the description. – LucasT 10:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose VI perhaps but I don't think it represents what FP is all about. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too many opposes, not possibility to success Ezarateesteban 18:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:李子坝站轻轨穿楼 0023.pngEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2019 at 08:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#China
  •   Info created by David290 - uploaded by David290 - nominated by David290 -- David290 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- David290 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Fairly good composition, but I'm not impressed by the perspective warp and the fairly low resolution.--Peulle (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and even if the quality were better the composition with a moving train barely inside the frame and the hills obove cut off is not ideal. – LucasT 10:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow and perspective issues (verticals are leaning out) --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like the composition and understand why you nominated it. If you can retake the photo at a higher resolution, without overexposing the sky and upper part of the photo, with a more normal-looking view as per others and preferably with more room on the top and possibly below as well, I could see that photo possibly being a Featured Picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan - as he says, the idea behind the photo is quite good, but there are a few technical improvements worth making. Cmao20 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan.--Vulphere 23:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan, I don't think the resolution's FP level yet--BoothSift 23:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too many opposes, no possibility to success Ezarateesteban 18:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Brescia duomo Broletto e Torre del Popolo.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 17:32:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
  •   Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Is there light yellow/green CA on the dome near the longitudinal lines, or is that coloration really on the dome? Otherwise, the slight noise at full size is IMO no big deal and the way the perspective distorts the shapes of the dome and statues is OK, and I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sorry, I generally admire your photos very much but I honestly think the crop on the left-hand side is too tight here. It just looks a little bit awkward to me. Cmao20 (talk) 19:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain I do not wish to vote on this image--BoothSift 03:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 06:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The perspective correction by software or the lens so verticals stay vertical leads to unnatural shapes and overal feeling of being stretched which is not pleasant to look at. This is a fundamental problem of rendering the world as we see it onto a flat sensor plane so I would have chosen to stand somewhere more in front. The left crop is definitely too tight and the cut in half car on the bottom is not ideal either. – Lucas 09:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas: trying to force 100% vertical verticals in this kind of image is futile and led to heavy distortion (e.g. of the dome). --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas and Cmao20. — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfortunately per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose same. Very boring composition to start with and much of a tourist snapshot feel. - Benh (talk)
  •   Oppose Per others -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose OMG. I taught for a second that somebody put something to my lemonade. The distortion is enourmous :) So as per boys. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per everyone else; I think this nomination has passed its expiration date if you get my meaning. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    •   Question So what do you want me to do? Drown miself? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
You could drown the nomination ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
That's already been done ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--BoothSift 23:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Portsmouth Cathedral Choir, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 19:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info The choir of Portsmouth Cathedral, looking towards the north east, in Hampshire, England. This is one of the Church of England's most unusual and eclectic cathedrals, taking shape over hundreds of years and incorporating multiple styles of architecture; the chancel and transepts are medieval, the choir is seventeenth-century, and most of the rest of the cathedral was built in the twentieth century in the tradition of Byzantine-Revival architecture (the nave was left unfinished for several years after WWII, and was only completed in 1991). Already FP on English Wikipedia, where it passed unanimously. Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ezarateesteban 22:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 03:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please have a look to the bottom line. It isn't horizontal. --XRay talk 09:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nothing special to me -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Piotr Bart and there's too much empty floor in the foreground. – LucasT 10:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucas I appreciate your feedback and don't necessarily disagree about the foreground. I would happily offer an alternative crop (it would have to be an alternative version, since I don't think we should mess with an original image that is fairly widely used and is FP on another project) but it doesn't look like that would make the difference between passing and failing, and I don't think I will complicate the nomination with an alternative at this stage. Cmao20 (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--BoothSift 23:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File: За селом 2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2019 at 16:05:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   CommentTo me it looks a bit too artificial. --Granada (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I haven't decided yet, but it's pretty small for a current-day FP nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Please, the size increased -- Swift11 17:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Beautiful, but it is indeed a little small. This camera produces 10 megapixel images, so I suspect it has been downsampled. Could we perhaps have a slightly larger version? Cmao20 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Tone the saturation down and you have my vote. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Tone the saturation downed -- Swift11 17:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I will be neutral on this one, it isn't enough for a support or oppose--BoothSift 03:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Boothsift.--Vulphere 03:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very nice, but the resolution must be better. --XRay talk 09:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Resolution bettered-- Swift11 18:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Considering that this was taken in the morning hours of a sunny day in October, the colors and saturation look pretty much exactly how I'd expect them to look. Size is a bit on the small side, but still enough for a large print. --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose pending the question about downsampling per Cmao20. Swift11, could you please explain? – Lucas 14:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Please Explain more (per Cmao20?)-- Swift11 17:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Much better! Seems much more like the sort of size I'd expect from that camera now. Changing to full   Support - thanks Swift11. Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Swift11, we are still short of the full 10 MP the camera is capable of with no explanation from you. Cmao20, I'm concerned you are happy being spoonfed 6 MP out of 10 MP when it's not answered whether it's a crop. – Lucas 20:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucas, I chose to take it on faith that it was a crop. In a situation where I asked for more resolution and someone provided it, I would generally assume on good faith they had uploaded the full file rather than taken the time to create a larger downsample. Of course you may be right that it's still downsampled, but I didn't feel like pressing the issue any further given that this size is adequate for FP for me. I know that we have a rule that prohibits downsampling, but I feel that the FP rules are somewhat contradictory in that sense - they simultaneously penalise for downsizing images and dictate that 'Images should not have distracting amount of noise when viewed in full size', which seems an invite for pixel-peepers and probably encourages people to downsize so as to avoid criticism. In addition, I'd point out that Diliff's church interiors - which I nominate a lot of - are nearly all downsampled to improve quality at full-res, so FP isn't really consistent about this. But this isn't the place for this discussion. For me, 6 MP is adequate for a rather nice landscape like this, but you are of course welcome to disagree. Cmao20 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Love it but wonder if clarity / contrast wasn't pushed a bit too far. - Benh (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done /clarity downed.../ -- Swift11 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm happy to support if you explain if it was down sampled or if it's a crop. Also, after the nomination is over, please give the file a meaningful name. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is the Carpathian Biosphere Reserve. Name foto: «On the edge of the village» -- Swift11 09:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Outstanding! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I agree. Outstanding composition and light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Appretiate all the changes after boys' feedback! Still a bit oversaturated to my taste but nothing that would stop me from supporting. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Not speaking for myself in this case, but perhaps you don't know that this is not an all-male group here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Frank and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I'm with Benh about too much clarity. It looks artificial. --Cart (talk) 08:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment do you watch the full size? -- Swift11 12:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course, always. You have to look at a photo in several different sizes before you vote. --Cart (talk) 12:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • on Monday I'll fix it... -- Swift11 17:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • /clarity downed. -- Swift11 19:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looking through your uploads, I found File:Polonyna v tumanah.jpg of the same scene taken just a minute earlier and the processing is way more natural than in this so my oppose stays. --Cart (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Benh and Cart. What did it for me is that tree at left center ... the edges of the leaves against the fog (which also looks like it could have been added as a texture in Photoshop—I'm not saying that it was) really don't look right. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How many times have you seen such a state of nature? -- Swift11 17:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Look through his uploads if you want to know. He's taken loads of photos of natural landscapes, including many in the Arctic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 3 oppose, 5 neutral → featured. /--BoothSift 23:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Aspidomorpha miliaris 03034.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 05:01:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Ikan Kekek:, @Alvesgaspar: Actually, the South African government labels it at 6-7 mm long. Anyways, this is a beetle and not a fly, other fly species can be much larger. --BoothSift 03:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe you should edit the Wikipedia article about the beetle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe I was referring to the fly--BoothSift 23:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Outstanding work for that size. Cmao20 (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support But I wish some more information on the description page --Llez (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Llez:   Done I guess--BoothSift 07:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great. Goe reference would be good. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Alien landed... ;oD --Yann (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 12:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Is there a way to reduce the brightness? Anyhow FP level to me for the originality and compo Poco2 13:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 11:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--BoothSift 05:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Paul Cézanne, French - The Large Bathers - Google Art Project.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 05:16:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /BoothSift 05:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Bald Blue Jay.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2019 at 01:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by Thcipriani - uploaded by Thcipriani - nominated by Thcipriani -- Thcipriani (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thcipriani (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very good, but please dial back the brightness on the highlights that look blown, so maybe we can see the details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharpness is just ok (I'd expect more detail) and apart from the issue commented by Ikan, the crop is on the right and at the bottom too tight Poco2 07:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very useful, but IMO not enough of the bird is sharp and focussed. Cmao20 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above --BoothSift 23:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because as per above comments. CptViraj (Talk) 05:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Bercerita dengan Wayang.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 11:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Candra Firmansyah - uploaded by Candra Firmansyah - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect but overall I think this is interesting enough for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great work! --Yann (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Indeed great. For some background: This man is the dalang, the puppet master, and he portrays stories from traditional Hindu epics by moving the puppets in front of a light source, so that their colored shapes are reflected on the screen and can be viewed by the audience. He also speaks and at times sings in the voices of the different characters and sometimes plays a percussion instrument called the keprak. However, I believe this picture was taken in his house, with him demonstrating how he moves this puppet, his wife is sitting next to him, and the instrument in front of him looks to be some kind of gambang (xylophone). In an actual performance, there would need to be a strong light shining from behind him through the shadow puppet. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think anyone who's seen The Year of Living Dangerously will recognize this. A beautiful shot. --Cart (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It'd be nice to have what Ikan wrote above in the file's description. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yeah, that would be nice for what Ikan wrote to be placed in the description. --BoothSift 23:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done! -- Wolf im Wald 00:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very cool. --Peulle (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 13:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Bhorley waterfall of Dolakha and Tamakoshi river as seen from above.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2019 at 11:46:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Question What is "neckage"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thought it was a satellite pic of a river delta at first. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support My brain froze a few seconds while figuring out the camera angle. I guess it qualifies as Wow effect. --Gyrostat (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Eatcha (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural#Nepal

File:German Embassy, Prague, back side with garden-6587.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2019 at 12:03:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Raymond – uploaded by Raymond – nominated by Draceane — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support If nothing else for then the Trabant statuse... on legs... four of them! -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting branch - Piotr Bart (talk) 13:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the statue but the branches are too distracting and even cross into the building. One bush on the bottom creeps in as well. CAs on branches and parts of the buildings. – Lucas 13:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The branches are just too distracting for me. Plus, the sharpness at the edges is considerably worse than in the centre. Cmao20 (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light is unappealing.--Peulle (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle --BoothSift 02:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm not that bothered by the branches, but otherwise, oppose per Peulle and Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Ikan, branches are not so distracting but the light is boring. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per JakubFrys.--Vulphere 12:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Let the branches do it. Millennium bug (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much CA and unsharpness, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Bennett Lake.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2019 at 03:29:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks for the feedback. You're right. I've got a version without the shadow + a bit sharper foreground. Could you point me how/where/when can I to replace the orginial version? Uploaded. Check it out. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Jakub, the cloning you did is still visible to an extent, most notably there's a brush stroke circle with a sharp contour that is a bit darker than the ground. – LucasT 07:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucas: Fixed. Thanks! -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rbrechko (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Millennium bug (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 06:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the idea of the composition, but that cast shadow on the lake and foreground doesn't render so well in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)