Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2016

Contents

File:Stone Flower (Кам’яна квітка).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2016 at 14:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:Kapellen natuur 2.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 13:50:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created by Smiley.toerist - uploaded by Smiley.toerist - nominated by Smiley.toerist -- Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry - the sky is completely blown and I honestly don't see any wow-factor here. --Code (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Code. INeverCry 18:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like photographs in which the viewer looks through vegetation, including backlit trees, and it's even nicer to combine that with reflections in a pond. However, there are three problems I see with this photo, two major and one minor. The major ones are: (1) The focus is significantly blown (as Code says, the sky is blown, but it extends to a lot of the vegetation beyond the immediate foreground); (2) relatedly, light this glary needs a denser screen of vegetation for a better composition. The minor one is that the crops on the left and right sides seem a little random, though they could be tweaked slightly if the two major problems didn't disqualify this photo from consideration for a feature. But I like your sensibility and hope you continue to take photos of similar motifs. If you take one that's sharper and has either softer light or a denser screen of vegetation, try again, but in the future, you might want to nominate your photo for Quality Image first, as this one probably wouldn't be approved for that, and if another photo is, you can at least be reassured that it's likely to be technically in the ballpark for Featured Picture consideration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of far from usual FP criteria, especially the overexposition of the sky.--Jebulon (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Tram Pesa Twist 71-414 in MSK (img1).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 13:15:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •   Info created + uploaded by Florstein - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 13:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice motive. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - At first, I just saw a picture of a tram. Then I looked at the picture as a whole and saw a really pretty scene with a good composition that features a tram and a do not enter sign in the foreground. This is really fine work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow factor here for me. INeverCry 19:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I like the colors and the light, and overall this captures the feeling of a large Russian city зимой. But ... the abundance of detail left of the sign overcomplicates it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support as per Johann Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per NeverCry. --Karelj (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 21:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per other opposers. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition and I like this light but there are too many distracting elements here. --Laitche (talk) 11:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Pine 06:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special for a FP, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 00:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Tel Aviv Central Bus Station, Levinsky St., Neve Sha'anan.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 13:14:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created & uploaded by Roi Boshi - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Interesting, and good enough quality for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much dark concrete, presumably the bottom of an underpass. There's a better picture with a 4:1 panoramic crop of the lower portion, focussing on street-level activity. But even in that crop, the lighting and technical qualities aren't quite FP level. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. INeverCry 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Arresting view, but Colin is right. Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very bold image. For me the dark concrete only adds to the composition, capturing the eye. --King of ♠ 04:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. --Karelj (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Damos und Musidora.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 11:15:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Joseph Kriehuber, Ein Matinée bei Liszt, 1846.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 11:42:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Ascensor del Monte de San Pedro, La Coruña, España, 2015-09-25, DD 99.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2016 at 21:12:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I suppose I do, too, and I'd happily support that photo for FP if it's nominated, but a view from a hill that includes the elevator is an entirely different type of picture than a view of an outdoor elevator shaft up a rocky hillside with the elevator on top in the distance, so isn't that a bit like saying "I prefer goat curry to roast chicken"? Either dish can be a great one of its type, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles

File:Bebenhausen Juni 2014.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 14:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Sigmaringen August 2015.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 14:56:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:YBCO video.webm, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 23:09:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
  •   Info created and uploaded by Maxim Bilovitskiy - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Fascinating. You might want to edit the description - there are now 2 English descriptions, the second of which is slightly longer than the first. Had you intended one of the descriptions to be in another language? Also, I was wondering how it was safe for someone to use their fingers; I guess despite the liquid nitrogen, it wasn't that cold where they were touching? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! I never saw that before. What a superb demonstration of this physical effect. Perfectly done. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. --Pugilist (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I've never seen thinks like that before. Very interesting. --Hockei (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 18:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, great! --Yann (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great! --Gyrostat (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 20:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animated

File:Cardiss Collins - Restoration.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2016 at 04:12:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
  •   Info created by Adam Cuerden - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Another of Adam's restorations of portraits for Black History Month. I actually had the pleasure of meeting, albeit briefly, Rep. Collins once. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The source appears to be too bright, but Adam, is it possible that you may have darkened the restoration a bit too much? The file does look good at full size, but I feel like the left (viewer's right) side of the congresswoman's face is darker than optimal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    If you feel sure you're being faithful to the original photograph, I'll defer to your judgment. No sense in penalizing you for what I would consider a shortcoming of a historic photo.   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    I've tried to be faithful, although there's always judgement calls when you don't have the original - preferably the original person as well - in front of you. The trouble is that there's not really one unambiguously best solution here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 15:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There's nothing particularly interesting about this portrait for me (no wow). She seems to be wearing pretty strong glasses, which makes it look like there is a large, rectangular section cut out of her head between her right brow and cheek. --El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per El Grafo. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per El Grafo. --Karelj (talk) 22:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Coprinus micaceus, Mica Inkcap.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 20:47:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
  •   Info created and - uploaded by Stu's Images - nominated by Σπάρτακος -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is quite a closeup! Much better than the eukaryote picture. Most of the mushrooms are very clear and for a bokeh background, it's not bad. I'm willing to tolerate the unsharp wood in the foreground, which bugs me more (though a partially corrective crop might be possible), because most of the mushrooms are so impressive and it's a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 01:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect—there are unsharp areas and some slight CA—but the mushrooms are in delicious detail with nice bokeh behind them. Daniel Case (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice colors and bokeh. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. --Code (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Fungi

File:Earthworm head.svg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 00:20:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment Please correct: seminal vessicles > seminal vesicles. I'll support once this will have been done. --Cayambe (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support after spelling error correction has been done. --Cayambe (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very useful and good --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Outstanding. I wish we had more illustrations like this. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok now for me --Hubertl 21:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC) changed to oppose for tactical reasons. --Hubertl 10:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 20:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Vesicles now fixed, @Hubertl, Cayambe, Ikan Kekek:. KDS4444 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Ессентуки 4.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2016 at 14:49:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

File:Whilst time is unveiling, Science is exploring Nature CROPPED.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2016 at 16:25:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Illustration
  •   Info Image from the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford - edited and uploaded by MartinPoulter - nominated by MartinPoulter -- MartinPoulter (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support An unusual medium: a ticket to a museum. Professionally digitised, with tweaks by uploader. Unusual subject matter: personifications of Science, Nature and Time. Remarkable in particular that, in the 18th century, Science was depicted as a woman. -- MartinPoulter (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry,nice but too small for this kind of images for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 20:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I may make up my mind later, but at the moment, I'm unsure, because I like the image but agree that it's pretty small, and maybe if it were bigger, the resolution could be even better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

*:I'll   Support this picture because I like it, but I won't be surprised if it is not featured because of its size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Changing to   Oppose per Adam Cuerden's point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

  •   Oppose [1], the source, has it much larger size if you zoom in. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At least it should be the same size as the source. Yann (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought I'd been working with the highest resolution available. Thanks Adam for correcting me. I will withdraw the nomination.   I withdraw my nomination MartinPoulter (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Adam. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Adam. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Leighton-God Speed!.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 07:42:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Nebel fließt über die Rhön.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 20:29:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

File:Santa Maria in Traspontina (Rome) - Ceiling of the sagresty.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 21:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Santa Maria in Traspontina (Rome) - Dome and ceiling.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 21:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Ak55-Busy afternoon.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2016 at 12:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment - *I basically agree with you. The women are beautiful and so are the fruits of their labor. In addition to your suggested crop, I'd also suggest cropping that part of the blurred background that's above their heads. It's a pity, because the basket is nice, too. I may oppose this photo, particularly in its current form, as it's clearly a VI and I suppose it's a QI, but is it truly "one of the finest images" at present? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
IMHO its "one of the finest images" because the subject and the culture value. --The Photographer (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a core principle of my aesthestics that subject and cultural value don't make an image or any kind of art good or bad. They can increase the interest of a work of art that's already good, but they can't make one that sucks into good art (I could give various analogies with other artistic media, but probably the easiest is to compare Picasso's "Guernica" to some poorly slapped-on graffiti that says "Fascists suck!!!!"). Now in this case, the image certainly doesn't suck, but it has to first of all stand on its own as an image before I'd be willing to consider other factors. As a matter of fact, your argument is tempting me to tilt toward opposing featuring this photo... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  Comment - I looked at the photo again. I guess I'm more or less neutral because though I don't like the degree of blur in the photo, it is both well-composed and, other than the blurring, an interesting and pretty image. But I don't feel impelled to support it, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
  Comment Yann, Ikan, why you don't crop and upload it? -- RTA 17:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  Comment - It would take a lot of time for me. I don't use Photoshop too often. However, if someone else makes the crop, I'll have a look at the result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Ikan, Cropping is easy with Commons:CropTool. Make sure you select "lossless cropping" (too keep all the quality) and to upload as a new file (since such a big crop mustn't be done in-place and also this is a prize-winning image we should leave alone). But I actually don't like the crop suggestion. -- Colin (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Some DoF problem, however, faces are in focus. Nice subject, lovely --The Photographer (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this framing and disagree on cropping. There's nice eye-line and leading-line factors with the subjects faces, the knitting, the needles, arms and their legs and basket. The subjects and their accessories make a very attractive picture. Ikan, "value" (i.e. educational value) is in the guidelines as a FPC factor to consider. So it isn't just about whether the photo is good art. We're an educational project after all, not the local camera club. On the negative point, the colours are a bit blown in places (which is probably hard to avoid) and the photo has been saved in AdobeRGB so everyone looking at this with a mobile browser will see dull colours and grey skin. -- Colin (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I do take educational value into account, but I wouldn't support featuring any picture on educational value alone. I appreciate the advice on cropping, but based on the comments, I'm not sure it's worth doing because it doesn't look like it would get support. Besides, I'm not positive it would solve all of my problems with the depth of field and resulting focus issues. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Really lovely! Don't crop, because then we can't contemplate the pose of the young girls. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 20:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 21:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -1 to the crop. As is, it shows us what they're doing as much as how much they enjoy it. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support strong but great colors! --Rettinghaus (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose very pity, but false focus point: unsharp faces. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Alchemist-hp, in my opinion you are wrong, the focus are in the hands, maybe because the photographer wanted to show the action, so the focus is okay... -- RTA 15:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Rodrigo.Argenton I'm reading: "This is an image of Cultural Fashion or Adornment from Kenia". That says me: the focus are the both nice girls and her clothes, not the girls' hands. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Alchemist-hp >> "English: Another busy afternoon." [2]. -- RTA 20:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but I can't believe that. I still think that we have here a focus and DOF problem. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose reluctantly due to focus issue. The colors and composition are good. --Pine 06:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice subject but per others, technicaly unsufficient.--Jebulon (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, except the smile... --Laitche (talk) 11:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Alchemist. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm fine with the focus. --Lošmi (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Beach in Helsingør, Denmark.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2016 at 11:29:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 20:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A scene that somehow seems to work only in Scandinavia. I'd prefer a deeper field, but that might not have been possible. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, sorry. Compositionally, the curve between the sand and water doesn't really lead anywhere. --King of ♠ 08:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  Oppose - To be honest, I feel the same way. This is a perfectly good QI but lacks the "wow" factor for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose doesn't seem straight to me --Rettinghaus (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support there is something special at the horizon... --Hubertl 23:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition is a bit weak and mood is not so attractive for me, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special. --Yann (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose it lacks a little something...Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow for me. --Pine 06:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Pine. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 14:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Fashion designer in St Louis in Senegal (croped).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2016 at 17:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Mariememissiaen - uploaded by Mariememissiaen - nominated and cropped by Rodrigo.Argenton -- -- RTA 17:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support We also need a better description, I cropped the original version, that have too much negative space, and some distractions, unfortatly I didn't found a crop good enough capable to include the fabric. -- -- RTA 17:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm sure you won't be surprised that I don't like all that blur in either version. I haven't decided yet whether to oppose on that basis. The original version has a better composition, though, and I don't see the advantage of the crop except on the left side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    Ikan Kekek better composition? Come on... and this you have the focus on the man. -- RTA 18:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The man and his garment is better to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop loses the garment. It is an environmental portrait, so the dodgy wiring is part of it. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative - the original versionEdit

Just for those who may like it...

 

  •   Comment I suggest a crop. See note. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Arion I tried that before, however look the woman behind th fabric... -- RTA 20:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's useful but not a great portrait, mainly because of the angle chosen. There's no dynamic to this perpendicular shot, so the subject looks like he's frozen. If we were more facing him and higher up then the image would have more energy, and we'd see the fabric he is working on. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I do prefer this crop, but there is an apparent dust spot on the inside left forearm that I cannot note because it's within the large area already annotated (Or at least I don't know how) that I would like to see removed before I register my !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support this uncrop version is better i believe, if you corp the left side and make it more like the first one. Speaks more than the crop version. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Cuevas de Hércules, Cabo Espartel, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 22-24 HDR.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 15:08:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The Caves of Hercules are of archeological, historical and mythological significance and are located 14 kilometres (9 mi) west of Tangier in Cape Spartel, in the North of Morocco. The cave is part natural and part-made, as the Berber people cut stone wheels from its walls (as you can appreciate in the image) to make millstones, expanding the cave considerably. The name is dedicated to Hercules as he is believed to have slept in the cave before doing his 11th labour, which was to get golden apples from the Hesperides Garden.
  •   Support Thank you Arion for having finally nominated it to FP!. I've applied some slight improvements. Poco2 15:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support YES! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Categories a bit more accurate than "2015 in Morocco" would be welcome. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support These caves have a specific category, Category:Caves of Hercules, Tanger, which I've added. INeverCry 19:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks INeverCry, I rarely forget that. Poco2 19:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Fascinating and well photographed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Had a lot of potential, and delivered. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportJulian H. 07:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 08:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:St Patrick's Cathedral Nave 3, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 17:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings

File:Dawn in the harbour of Sète.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 21:28:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I think it's special here is the contrast between the monochrome look and fiery color of the sunset that showcases the port silhouettes. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Really gorgeous! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Vincent van Gogh enjoyed mood and colors of southern France. I share his feelings and impressions. Especially with this picture. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice aesthetics. --Pine 06:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark and dull foreground. A composition problem, sorry -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral As it is, I agree with George. But I think it might stand a chance if cropped in. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  I withdraw my nomination No, it was taken at 16mm with a 16-24mm lens. It was my choice and I assume. I'm not going to crop it, to make a "zoom-in" picture, and to save the little part that can be saved, and certainly not to make a fp with a little part of this image. The next time I will try to do better, it's all. Thanks you all. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm not seeing it either. Yes, there are nice things happening with the light, but they take up less than half the picture frame. I don't find it easy to move my eyes around the picture frame, perhaps partly because most of it is at about the same level of low light. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Moral   Support --Yann (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Camargue cattle, Saint-Gilles 08.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2016 at 12:32:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
  •   Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 15:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - Please explain what you guys are seeing that's wowing you. This is definitely a nice QI, but what makes it more than that to you? To be sure, the cattle are somewhat irregularly centered, which is nice, but I'm unsure I'm satisfied with the forms of the trees in the background. This picture doesn't scream "FP" to me, and I'm leaning to voting against it on that basis, but I'd be really interested to hear you out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
    For me it's the way the dark cattle look against the complimentary light green of the grass and their spread-out but still pretty tight formation. Also the reeds gel a bit with the legs and upturned horns. The trees in the background don't take anything away from the focus of the image, the cattle, and are a pleasant enough backdrop. That's my take, now back to my Flickr2Commons cleanup. INeverCry 20:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you. I understand your point of view. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I prefear File:Camargue cattle, Saint-Gilles 09.jpg, maybe I will try another nomination with it. Sorry for the inconvenance. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Entrance La Rochelle old harbor.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 19:05:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Funifor Arabba Porta Vescovo.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 18:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
  •   Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfortunately: the shadow is too dominating --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Martin. INeverCry 18:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I don´t have any problems with the shadows at all. It is as it is, on the north side of mountain, there is no sun for month. For me very impressive and well done too! --Hubertl 00:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a great winter mountain landscape, a great picture of the cable car and has great perspective, all of which distract me from the shadow  . Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much is in shadow. --King of ♠ 05:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question - I like the shadow. Why do some of you find shadows bad? I truly don't understand and would love an explanation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I don't dislike shadows in general, I just don't think this particular shadow helps the composition in question. In the end, it all comes down to a matter of taste once again --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
      •   Comment - As they say, there's no accounting for taste (or in French, chacun à son gout). But I think the contrast of shadow and light is central to this composition, not a distraction from something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
        •   Comment Btw imho the shadow is a good background for the tram (the actual subject) which is in the sunlight--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support There´s no problem with the shadow for me. --Milseburg (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Why the shadows are a problem? Is a problem if you lose details...but i don't see this problem for me are "affascinanti" here--LivioAndronico (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the angle. The lighting is ok as far as I'm concerned. --Pine 06:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shadow.--Jebulon (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, just doesn't really "wow" me over all. --El Grafo (talk) 10:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 20:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good image, but nothing special, no reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Hubertl. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Mooste mõisa auruveski 2013.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2016 at 23:14:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Unknown - Statuette of Aphrodite Leaning on a Pillar - 55.AD.7.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2016 at 23:35:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by unknown artist / J. Paul Getty Museum, uploaded by Revent, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Aphrodite, terracotta with polychromy, between 250 and 200 BC. “Leaning on a pillar, Aphrodite, the goddess of love, wears a large wreath of flowers and a cloak draped around her hips. The goddess's pose is based on a much earlier, clothed statue of Aphrodite made by the sculptor Pheidias in the 400s B.C. In accordance with later Hellenistic tastes, the terracotta's artist chose to depict her semi-nude to emphasize her sensuality. The goddess's outstretched left hand originally held an offering, probably either a dove or an offering bowl. The figurine, originally brightly painted, still bears traces of red paint. The city of Tanagra in northern Greece was a leading producer of small terracotta figurines, which were exceedingly popular in the 300s and 200s B.C. Women, especially elaborately and stylishly dressed women, were the favorite subject matter, but the figurines also often portray handsome youths, children, and Eros, the winged young god of love.”
  •   Support While we have a lot of painting nominations, we don't have that many of sculptures, and very few of that quality. -- Yann (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support as uploader. For those who don't have the script, the image is 78.92 megapixel, which is pretty insanely detailed for an object of that size, and it's a 'official' image from the museum, so it's quite unlikely a better one of this work will come along any time soon. Revent (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support! Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Per Yann. --Pugilist (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 15:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportJulian H. 14:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice detail, of course, but also well-composed and lit. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 04:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Daniel. Not an expert, but it seems to me they carefully created a Rembrandt lighting on the face? --El Grafo (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:2015.08.19.-05-Mannheim Vogelstang--Gammaeule.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 12:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Noctuidae_.28Owlet_moths.29
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - That's good camouflage! I had to look at the photo's page 3 times before I noticed the moth, although it's more clearly visible at full size, since you can see its hairs. I like the composition, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While I agree it was great camouflage, so great that I was asking myself, more than once, "Why did he nominate this picture of a dead leaf?", it just doesn't have any wow for me as an image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
      Comment - I think that's a strong argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
      Comment - However, I still think this photo is interesting enough to feature. Pure interest plus technical quality and a good composition seems to me an acceptable substitute for "wow", and besides, I'm kind of wowed by the depiction of camouflage. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel. INeverCry 06:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Gibbaeum nebrownii.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 20:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Sangker river fishing boats 2016.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2016 at 19:39:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Faro, Chipiona, España, 2015-12-08, DD 16-18 HDR.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2016 at 21:21:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:2013.06.23.-08-Wesenberg-Rauchschwalben.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2016 at 07:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Hirundinidae_.28Swallows.29
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely birds, well captured. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I love the birds and the fact that none of the picture is blurred, but I'm not quite as sure about the composition. I'm wondering whether cropping just above the nails might make me like the picture more. I'm not going to try tonight, but perhaps someone else will. Right now, I'm finding this a bit borderline for a feature, and probably on the "high Quality/non-Featured" side, purely based on the way my eye would rather move around a cropped version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  Info This is the natural environment where this species of birds breeds and rears his offspring. I see that as part of the composition. Also the spider web below. --Hockei (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  Comment - Yes, I see that. But I'm not suggesting a crop of the image below the birds, only of part of the image above the birds. If the image were cropped above the nails, which important part of the birds' environment would be lost? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Didn't think this would work, but it gets better and better the larger it gets. Excellent environmental shot of an animal. Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  Request @Daniel Case: Your vote overlapped with my upload of the cropped version. Maybe you should take a second look if it still works for you. Thanks --Hockei (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It's even better, actually. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info New cropped version. --Hockei (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but I don't see what you cropped, and yes, I looked at the file's history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleting cookies and restarting the browser should help.   --Hockei (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's going wrong. I cleared my cache and even used a private browser. I'll try using IE instead of Firefox. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, still not seeing it. I was liking this photo better than before, but it looks like the same photo, when I compare it to a preview of the preedited file from an edit screen. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it really! --Hubertl 17:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This would fail on the usual criteria of the background, but it really does work and is a 'natural' setting. I like the composition. Charles (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The background is not appealing to me, and it could be higher quality. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes

File:Poertschach Werzerpromenade Schiffsanlegestelle Sonnenuntergang 17022015 7558.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2016 at 11:30:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Hubertl 12:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

Cathedral of Chartres, Lithographies of a stained glass window, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2016 at 19:42:11 (UTC)

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Cathedrale de Chartres. Stained glass window, the life of Jesus Christ - All together makes the complete window, Lithographer:Emile Beau, Drawing by Paul Durand. Chromolithography by Hangard-Maugè, Paris 1867. These Scans are made from the original lithography, the sheet sizes are about 106 x 72 cm.
  •   Info Scanned, postprocessed, uploaded and nominated by Hubertl 19:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC) In fact, I found this big map in the Bundesdenkmalamt in Vienna during my time there as Wikipedian in Residence, nobody knew before, that it exists! It was a great moment, indeed!
  •   Support -- Hubertl 19:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I am very impressed. Each of these would FP on its own, and in addition, they create a wonderful set. Certainly one of the best stained glass, and may be even art reproduction we have. Yann (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 22:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Yann. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support !! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Per Yann. Of great beauty and value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I think you should come to France, and see the real one as reward for your finding ! I'll try to stitch it as a whole.--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I´m already working on it!! --Hubertl 17:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question The unrestored versions you provide are marked as public domain. These restored versions are licensed under CC BY SA 4.0 and marked public domain at the same time. I was wondering what your copyright claim is aiming at? The "restoration"? The faithful reproduction of a 2D public domain work? Something else? Regards, Christoph Braun (talk)
    •   Comment Changed, of course, it´s all PD. --Hubertl 14:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your reply. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
        • @Hubertl: In credit line und permission taucht die CC-Lizenz immer noch auf... Grüße! --Code

(talk) 06:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

      •   Comment jetzt passt´s aber. Alles umgestellt. --Hubertl 13:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Top, there is not much more to say. --Poco2 23:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Hubertl 12:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Cime de Caron France top station from SE on 2015-01-05.png, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2016 at 10:41:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created and uploaded by Robert F. Tobler - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I again nominate a photo because I really enjoy moving my eye around it, but this is also of some specific instructional relevance, as it would be our first Featured Picture in Category:Top Station, and it is in fact used in w:Top station. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 13:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Everything is good or excellent in this image. Light, composition, sharpness, "life", landscape, etc... Maybe a slight color banding in the blue sky, but according too my little experience, it often depends of the monitors. FP without doubt for me.--Jebulon (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
      Comment - Thanks for your analysis and vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Ordinarily I'd say it was too cluttered, but the people there are a necessary part of the lift's function. And the lift and the landscape are strikingly juxtaposed. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
      Comment - Yes, they are. Thanks for your comments and vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality and great composition, it looks really balanced. --Poco2 23:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportJulian H. 15:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support great viewpoint for this subject; up high above the crowd. Lots of detail! -- Thennicke (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Ikan Kekek: Thank you for nominating my photo for FP, and thanks to all those who supported it. --Rftblr (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Divinity School Interior 3, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 16:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Question - That's a good point. The composition you linked is better. Should that disqualify this image from consideration, as a less-great version of a FP? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • No, it shouldn't disqualify it. Every voter should decide, with all the information in mind, if this photo should be an FP in addition to the other one. That's my opinion at least. — Julian H. 08:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • It's probably too late to change this nomination (and it looks like it will pass), but maybe this image could have been nominated instead, as it is the view from the other end of the room, instead of from the same end. Diliff (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 08:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think this one does not add anything to the previous already FP of the same place. FP should be rare. Per discussion.--Jebulon (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am with Jebulon here, great quality of course, but the picture is just a few steps further in comparison to this other FP of David. Both are too similar to me (with no essential change in the composition) in order to grant to both of them the FP award. --Poco2 23:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 28-30 HDR.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2016 at 20:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Steps and pulpit of the refectory (dining room) of the Cistercian Monastery of Santa María de Huerta located in the village of Santa María de Huerta, province of Soria, Castille and León, Spain. The first stone of the building was laid by the king Alfonso VII of Castile in 1179 and the building undergoed an expansion in the 16th century thank to the help of the kings Charles I and Philip II. The refectory, built in 1215, is the jewel of the monastery and one of the best examples in Europe. The pulpit was used by a monk for reading during dinner time. All by me, Poco2 20:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 20:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I already have been waiting for this nomination! --Hubertl 21:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love this photo. Such a wonderful motif, and very clearly taken in good light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't feel comfortable with the perspective deformation of the pulpit...--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
    Jebulon: I agree, actually I was working on that in parallel to your comment. Please, check the last version Poco2 21:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 22:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Close to excellent after correction. I like the place very much.--Jebulon (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
    It is really worth a visit, you may like other corners of the monastery like this, this, this, this, this or this. Poco2 23:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 04:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support If possible shift the crop a bit to tHe left --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
    Uoaei1: Good point, thanks and   Done Poco2 11:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --DXR (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rftblr (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- wonderful in its splendidly reduced simplicity! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. Would've liked it even more if it had been taken with a longer focal length form further away, but I'm gonna assume that this was just not possible. --El Grafo (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
    El Grafo: I see your point, but I was already at the wall, I couldn't get further backwards. --Poco2 11:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah, that's what I expected. When there's one wall, chances are good there are other ones as well ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fantastic.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This is fantastic. — Julian H. 15:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lewis Hulbert (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Patrick Stewart 2012.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 06:04:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Anders Krusberg / Peabody Awards - uploaded by MyCanon - nominated by Pine -- Pine 06:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pine 06:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Mild support, as it's a pretty good portrait of an important actor with his award at a significant event, though I don't really feel wowed by it, partly because of his facial expression. Also, while the image is big enough for me, it is a little small for FP, if I understand correctly that 6 MP or greater are preferred. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Ikan there's no hard-and-fast rule. One 6MP image might be pin sharp and full of detail whereas a 12MP could be soft focus or so much NR there's no detail at all. But it would be hard to get much larger image for this ISO and 12MP camera used -- even a little cropping could reduce the MP considerably. An event photo like this can't really be compared to a studio photo in terms of expectations of resolution, say, though that means it has to compensate in other ways, and this rather boring pose doesn't imo. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The background is too distracting. --Code (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Code. It is a shame so many events use these "repeating logo" backgrounds. No more than QI. The use of f/9 was probably not a great choice, raising the ISO high and robbing detail. No colourspace. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I've seen better pictures of Patrick Stewart not making any facial expressions. And the light isn't doing him any favors, either. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin & Daniel. I wonder if Chace Watson/MyCanon is still around here somewhere...   INeverCry 05:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Code. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Rio Marin Venezia.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 10:09:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good photo, pleasant to look at and informative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A nicely understated picture that captures Venice well. I would have sharpened a little less, but that's me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thanks for the support Daniel. I usually, as in this case, don't sharpen and camera settings are neutral in regard to sharpening. Actually I like this picture for the crisp rendering of lights. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good image, but nothing special, no reason for FP.--Karelj (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Karelj, I think the lighting conditions could be better. --King of ♠ 08:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I nominated the picture because of the lighting conditions --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much shadow. --Yann (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Venice is made for lovers. --Hubertl 22:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose this is not special enough for me for such an extraordinary city as Venice --Rftblr (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
      Comment - I respect that opinion. It's a very good and informative photo, but I understand the pro and con arguments on whether to feature it or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special. Sorry --A.Savin 14:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann. I like the composition but the lighting is far from good. Maybe this spot could be FP at a differnt time --Poco2 23:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The shadows don't bother me at all; they're an important part of the scene. Composition is excellent. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

File:The Shuttle Enterprise - GPN-2000-001363.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2016 at 06:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • First, I don't think there's any other free image showing most of the original Star Trek cast (William Shatner does not seem to be present) plus Gene Roddenberry (nor, of course, could there be the likelihood of another one, as four of the people in that group are dead). A more striking detail whose significance is not immediately apparent is that Leonard Nimoy and Roddenberry are not only standing next to each other but are actually looking like they're enjoying it, something you might not expect given Nimoy was in protracted litigation with Paramount at the time and was rather upset with Roddenberry personally for showing all the blooper reels at conventions. That adds a lot of significance to this.

    It's too bad about their clothes, but as my wife and I frequently turn to each other and say "It ... was ... the ... '70s!"

  • Second, to me this marks a key moment in late 20th century history: the moment when science fiction began to inspire reality. NASA's astronauts might have named the ships on one of the Apollo missions after Peanuts characters, but they never would have dreamed of naming one after a ship in a sci-fi movie or TV series; the success and influence of Star Trek changed that in less than a decade. And look where things have gone from there ...
Thus concludes what I hope will be my longest !vote ever. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Daniel. INeverCry 05:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great statement, Daniel! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support absolutely --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support yay! --Rettinghaus (talk) 15:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I am very much in favor of this image (as per Daniel), but I suggest the careful use of noise reduction software, as there is a significant amount of noise all over the image (e.g. the sky). As an example of what can be achieved (in this case with Topaz Denoise 6): [3]. Also there are two scratches that should be edited out (I have done that in the denoised version): a yellow one above DeForest Kelley's amulet and a thin black one going down from the name of the Enterprise text (which cannot be a feature of the enterprise, since the features are not as sharp at this distance). --Rftblr (talk) 19:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good image, but nothing special, no reason for FP.--Karelj (talk) 21:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gildir (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Karelj. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Karelj and bad crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Karelj, and I also believe that this picture can be improved with better processing. --Poco2 23:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Chrysolophus amherstiae (Leadbeater, 1829).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2016 at 23:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Charles, while I agree the rest of the bird is very colourful and it is a shame this photo doesn't include them, where are the "better images"? I look at several and they are all small or poor quality. This seems quite sharp enough, but I'm not sure to support due to the loss of the colourful plumage. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Colin, they are all in Category:Chrysolophus amherstiae (captive). None are that special but if there was a run off for FP I have to support one of them. This image just doesn't have the composition or technical quality to be FP and it doesn't illustrate the bird at all well. FP should be a high barrier to clear. Charles (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Charles: None of those photos is a QI or VI. Could you please point to one or two you like better than this one, so we can consider them by comparison? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support After reading above.--Jebulon (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Charles. I also find this crop a little too tight, head shot notwithstanding. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose In the end, I've decided that choosing to frame just the head of this very colourful bird is an odd choice. Many of the best bits are missing. -- Colin (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. --Rftblr (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Weird lighting and not sharp enough. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is really eyecatching, but the crop is far too tight to me, it cannot breath. It is really a shame, I'd like to support it with a better framing --Poco2 23:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Col de Ronc Sureghes Urtijëi.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2016 at 10:31:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created and uploaded by Wolfgang Moroder - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I am putting this under "Places", but this also fits under "Natural phenomena", namely the clouds and fog. This is simply another composition I love looking at. It has wonderful three-dimensionality, variety of light, a great overall shape of a near circle of trees surrounding the clearing and village below, and the nearby tree in the lower right corner makes it even better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Significant blown clouds. Areas of low contrast aren't appealing (whether caused by lens flare or mist). I wish the central region was better lit. -- Colin (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Colin.--Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I don't blame you for trying and it came out better than one might expect, but Colin is right about the blown areas. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Have you still the RAW data? Try again as mentioned above and try to lighten up the grass area, that will be perfect. -- -donald- (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Moroder, maybe I should have asked you before nominating this photo, but I really like it. However, you can see that the voting trend is not favoring a feature. If you can and would like to take the step -donald- requests above, please go ahead and offer a new version as an alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment On the contrary I'm most honoured for the nomination. I do not understand all the fuss with the overexposure since it is not present on the histogram or at least imho irrelevant. I have a RAW file but don't know how to process selected areas of a photo.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
      • The histogram shows a spike very close to the far right which indicates the blown areas have been "recovered" slightly. But looking at the jpg, one can see large areas of close-to-white all with exactly the same RGB values. Even without such analysis, one can see harsh transition to white in the clouds, which isn't appealing. Blown is blown, even if the levels are adjusted to off-white. Perhaps Photoshop Lightroom would do a better job than Photoshop Elements. I don't think fixing the blown areas would help with the low-contrast issue. I don't find the scene/composition nearly as compelling or special as Ikan. -- Colin (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --Isasza (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose disturbing burned out clouds Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination. I still like this photo, but I don't see any likelihood of enough people voting to feature it. Thanks for taking the time to evaluate and comment on this photo, everyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Praia de Lariño. Carnota. Galiza LC10.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2016 at 09:24:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Christian--Lmbuga (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support INeverCry 17:39, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl 19:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I find this picture extremely restful, but it's also greatly helped by having a lot more than just water, sand and people. In particular, the hills in the middleground are beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but there is no wow for me in this picture and it's difficult to get the main idea of its author. The vast sandy area to the bottom, especially to the bottom left, seems to be disturbing and overexposed in some parts. Some minor objects in the background, such like the people, houses and trees, are out of focus. When staring at the sea for a while, I feel like it's unnaturally leaned toward the beach. In general, I don't think that the image was taken from the right angle.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Slight oppose A tricky image given what the photographer seems to have been trying to do, and it seems like they pushed the processing a little too far to do it (And besides, the description is off—I see a lot more people than just one woman in the scene). Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly a nice place, but quality not FP level, mainly overexposed sand. Yann (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think there is a composition there somewhere that is great, but as it is, I find there to be a little too much unmotivated stuff towards the edges. Maybe going lower on those plants on the lower right might have worked, using them as the main foreground, and zooming in a bit to get rid of the houses on the very right and left in the background. — Julian H. 15:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unpleasing composition. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks.
    Galego: Agradezo sentirme considerado (a ironía é algo habitual e non molesto nin disruptivo na Galiza)
    --Lmbuga (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Gardian and Camargue cattles, Saint-Gilles 12.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2016 at 06:14:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mario Draghi World Economic Forum 2013 crop.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2016 at 19:19:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I don't think you meant to oppose your own nomination (this isn't a joke nomination, right?), but it's not an attractive portrait. His jacket is dirty (dandruff?) and his face looks like someone who was drinking heavily and possibly crying the night before, given how his eyes look, in particular. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I would have expected that on April 1. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)