Open main menu

Contents

File:Pirogue and tiny wooded island reflecting in the water.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2018 at 01:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural#Laos

File:Śnieżka (Sněžka, Schneekoppe) - view from Słonecznik (Mittagstein, Polední kámen).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2018 at 13:26:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Desert Dome Omaha Zoo.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 05:29:44 (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 it has too many quality issues per above comments. --Cart (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2018 (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, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Malachite kingfisher (Corythornis cristatus cristatus) Namibia.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 May 2018 at 16:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I'm afraid not. Size is around 13cm, so I'm actually about 6m away. Charles (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Maybe nice, but the tip of the beak and the legs are not sharp. Using 560 mm f8 should work. I wonder why not here. Also the lower area of the picture is noisy. --Hockei (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Did you check the Canon APS-C DoF chart Hockei? DoF is 3cm and kingfishers 'lean forward' when perching, so feet will unfortunately not be in focus at 6m. I see no significant noise. Charles (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Kingfishers are soooo hard to shoot, and this is a pretty good one. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Hockei.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Bearded man smoking pipe-3013924.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2018 at 07:16:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by ThuyHaBich, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Can you explain your objective and the value to Commons in uploading someone else's images of these unknown people? Charles (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Do I need an objective? Sorry, but I don't understand your question. Being a good portrait under a free license should be sufficient, isn't? Regards, Yann (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Charles, I think your comment about "uploading someone else's images" is rude and you should strike it. Have you not noticed, in all these years, that some nominators, like Yann, nominate other people's photos? The vast majority of photos on Commons were not in fact taken by a Commoner, but uploaded from elsewhere because they had a free licence and were judged to have some value for an educational purpose. While the notability of a subject is a plus factor in terms of educational value, it is perfectly possible for a portrait of an "unknown" person to have educational value and be of high quality. Yann, those two attributes are not totally sufficient -- we do place some merit on educational value (though not, encyclopaedic value). -- Colin (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm happy to strike the comment and leave the query related to educational value. Charles (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • While educational and ecyclopedic values are very often given as reasons for promoting a photo at FPC, it says in Featured picture candidates#Featured picture candidate policy General rules sect. 7 that "the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects". We don't know what future projects might be. Someone may for example want illustrations for an article on "Pipe smoking in the 21th century" and in that case this photo may become relevant. (The only photo FP we have at the moment of someone smoking a pipe is this.) The photo below of the woman would be great in an article about "Glamour photography, old school version". Only your imagination sets the limits. All good photos are welcome. --Cart (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, I have often argued that FP votes on Commons do not take enough value as a criteria. But then we would need to define value. To me, portraits have more educative value that pictures of rarely seen bugs and random places. The variety of face expressions are quite amazing to me, and that itself is a good reason to nominate a picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Well this is the essence of the difference between educational and encyclopaedic, and why the latter is not Commons' purpose -- that's for Wikipedia FP. But Commons has moved on beyond its original mission (to illustrate Wikimedia projects) and is a repository of educational images for anyone to use. Educational is more than "illustration of". -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
"But then we would need to define value." this is not true, and never has been. We don't have a full and complete and yet finite set of criteria for judging images. It is up to you and me and the others to determine the educational value just as we determine "wow" or whether the exposure, sharpness and composition are satisfactory. Is the only rule on composition the "rule of thirds", which bizarrely gets a mention on this page? No, we all bring our own ideas to the table. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion becomes a mess when we try to interfere -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:San Sebastian Donostia Panoramic 1190583.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 May 2018 at 20:43:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info View of San Sebastian with Zurriola Beach and the mouth of the river Urumea. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ezarateesteban 00:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice dynamics, something interesting to see in every part of the frame. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot and super detail. Charles (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sure why the far right hand side is included, which is just a tree and hard to see what is behind it. Although the image had detail and is useful, the composition isn't working for me. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The sea level is not horizontal, furthermore I agree that the picture looks better without the tree on the right, or at least cropping half of it Poco2 06:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'd support an even more radical crop, to the left of the church. The parts of the picture I like best are the beach and breakwater, the green hill in the middleground and the sea. The city isn't all that interesting to me in this hazy light, and I also agree that the part of the photo obstructed by the tree isn't really worth including. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I won't change my vote, but I agree with some cropping. Charles (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I wouldn´t remove the branches completely, because they are giving the panorama an obvious frame on the right side. The view as it´s whole is very interesting and presented very well. The tilt of the horizon is marginal. --Milseburg (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Colin: @Ikan Kekek: @Milseburg: I have cut something off on the right but I don't want to go any further because otherwise the part of the city on the picture is too small and I also find the part behind the church interesting.--Ermell (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's better. I now mildly oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:ET Axum asv2018-01 img03 Abba Pentalewon.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2018 at 12:42:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 20:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People#People at work

File:Black-faced impala (Aepyceros melampus petersi) female head composite.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2018 at 14:54:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

There was anger in the community, where a spokesbuck said, "Amy would never have been stopped if it hadn't been for the colour of her face".
Mug shots by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Aha, Gotcha! Now we know that in your spare time, you Charles, write movie scripts. --Cart (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The front view is very nice but I'm less thrilled by the the twig "connecting" her snout with her back and the "flowery horn" on her forehead. Any chance of getting those cloned out? --Cart (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Mmmm. Not sure I should, so let's wait and see. Easily done. Charles (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support on Cart's suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I find more usefull separate it on two images --The Photographer 00:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support on this nomination and neutral on The Photographer's suggestion of 2 separate images. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Branches cloned out as suggested and here are the two separate images. Charles (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Together or separated -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The mug shot style is great here but it is also useful to have the two separate photos. --Cart (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Together or separated, with branches cloned out -- P999 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice image, but some noise.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 08:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Feldkirchen Klein St Veit Pfarrkirche hl Veit NO-Ansicht 20042016 1582.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2018 at 05:36:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • My art installations are on a world tour.   --Cart (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry to disturb the party. Good quality, but ordinary church, partly in shadow, half cut house at right, top too tight, and the bundles do not add to he pastoral atmosphere. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:57, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but per Yann. --A.Savin 20:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 14:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann - Nice but not that special to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Prinz-Carl-Palais Munich, April 2018 -02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 10:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thanks! The US consulate loves to really aggressively illuminate its flagpole... I've tried to get it under control a bit better —-Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, Charles, moving cars can add a nice extra touch, sometimes --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful. Seems a little late for early Neoclassicism, no? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
you're right, of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications

File:Viersch bei Klausen Apfelbäume.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 05:49:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Getting this shot with the rainbow was probably an ecstatic experience. By featuring it, the viewer on a given day can vicariously share the experience. And the thing is, the composition is arguably good enough to feature without the rainbow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Andrey Rublev - Св. Троица - Google Art Project.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 17:42:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Cañón Miles, Yukón, Canadá, 2017-08-26, DD 130-132 PAN.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 21:30:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Sorry, I don't get your point, I've reduced the highlights and the overall exposition but I cannot see that ideal environment for a blue rabbit you talk about. I'd to hear some other takes on this. The image you linked is a whole different animal, I reduced the exposure of the sky to make it more dramatic, nothing like that has been done here. It's just the developing settings I've used in thousends of images. Poco2 14:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at this shot taken 1 minute later, the original contrasts suggest that the lighting conditions were not so cooperative, though -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Basile: the only one thing I can think of that could may look this picture strange is the WB, I think that it was indeed a bit off (too warm). New version uploaded, does it look now more natural to you? Poco2 18:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes I see an improvement, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The cut-off framing trees aren't helping, especially the one on the left. Perhaps more or less? Charles (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
    Charles, the trees are gone Poco2 14:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support VANDAL! Charles (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I have mixed feelings about cloning out things that are there, especially things that are relatively permanent, but it did make this a better, more restful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support; it looks better now. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful scenery -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tozina (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Morro do Pai Inácio 01.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 May 2018 at 23:54:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Gustavo Couto - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Measured   Support - Not the sharpest photo, and the rock face on the left is a little dark, but the photo is beautiful and pleasant to look at at full screen (i.e., without pixel-peeping) and deserves a feature for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose per Ikan, it isn't really sharp and that should have been possible, that's a big weakness for FP Poco2 06:16, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky is nice, but the light is in other respects not very impressive and the lack of detail results in this not being one of the best images on Commons, IMO. --Peulle (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Per Poco and Peulle --Llez (talk) 11:02, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because of poor image quality --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. --A.Savin 20:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

File:GM Renaissance Center from below.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 05:16:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info created by Paul Bica - uploaded by Mark Schierbecker - nominated by ParadiseDesertOasis8888 -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Great building, but I don't like the crops, especially on top. I'd think a more recent picture of this tower might be bigger and higher-resolution, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, the composition has problems. The structure in concrete hides the top of the low building. The top crop of the image is too tight. The perspective is very strong with that car in front that looks giant. Also I find the picture too noisy. Interesting subject but too many issues -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose There are a couple of things in its favour; very nice light, for instance, and an interesting subject in itself. I agree with the others that the top crop is a bit too tight, but I had to look closely to decide if it was a big problem. There have been FPs succeeding that weren't too far from this level of quality, so on the whole, I see the potential. I'd recommend reshooting, taking into consideration the feedback given above here.--Peulle (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A striking composition, but ... while I don't mind the People Mover track in front, nor the traffic light's gantry, I do find the tight crops at top and bottom, the obvious distortion on the front tire of the parked vehicle, the unsharp areas at the top of the left tower, and that anomalous patch of lighter blue between the buildings (did someone miss it while adjusting the rest of the sky?) put this beyond FP consideration. Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the clear perspective distortion, but it should be more symmetric than this, and the top crop is too tight. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Magda Sayeg yarn bomb Roppongi Hills Tokyo.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 14:24:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Louis Bourgeois' Maman sculpture in Roppongi Hills, Tokyo, covered in yarn by textile artist Magda Sayeg to celebrate the 15th anniversary of Roppongi Hills. Mori Tower stands in the background. This was Sayeg's first large-scale art installation in Asia. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Brinacor -- Brinacor (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Brinacor (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm not sure about the composition, but I don't have to make up my mind about it because the lens flare and the amount of noise make this not an FP or QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the idea and composition are excellent - the actual execution and technical quality not so, I'm afraid. It appears the picture was taken hand-held... any chance you try it again using a tripod? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Alas, it was taken hand-held! (And it was during a quick walk through the area, so I didn't have time to properly set things up). I'll try to get a better shot with less noise and lens flare. Thanks all for the feedback. --Brinacor (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2018 (JST)
  •   Oppose In addition to problems noted by Ikan, it is very noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Giraffe08 - melbourne zoo.jpg (delist), delistedEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 May 2018 at 21:12:02
 

  •   Info Poor quality zoo image by today's standards of an easily-photographed animal - see this photo or this composite (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Charles (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist I agree. The composition is fine, but the resolution isn't high enough.--Peulle (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist Good at the time, but we can do better now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist Per others. — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist per Daniel Case. --A.Savin 20:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist per Daniel -- P999 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep The picture is very nicely done and the quality, in my opinion, is better than some of our current year's featured pictures. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I looked at the linked pics for comparison and would agree to   Delist . Still a good QI, but no longer an FP in this category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Result: 7 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --A.Savin 12:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Nötsch Kerschdorf Filialkirche hl. Nikolaus und Friedhof 08052015 3451.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2018 at 14:50:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Streaky seedeater (Crithagra striolatus striolatus).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 May 2018 at 10:00:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • 13-14cm. It's a young bird and I was able to get very close. Charles (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Not all of the face is equally sharp, but the photo is impressive even on the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support So beautiful! Hard to take my eyes off it ... -- P999 (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose DoF : nearly everything on this low-res picture is out of focus, even the eye is not sharp, compared to this, or to that head of bird for example. Then, just a beak is not enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Much too small and even at this size the quality doesn't convince me (per the comment above). The composition isn't that extraordinary, too. --Code (talk) 07:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Yes it is too small, I agree. Charles (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:28, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Pöggstall St. Anna im Felde Westfenster 02.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 May 2018 at 09:43:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

talk) 15:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Regensburg St.Leonhard 3250019-PSD.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 19:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Tower of the church St. Leonhard in Regensburg. all by me -- Ermell (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's nice but from this angle there's no real "wow" feeling for me. --Peulle (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very high-quality, and there's something simple and pure to me about the geometric figures in the architecture and shadows. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing really special. --Yann (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Technically a high quality image, but from that angle und with the very clear lighting (quite boring pure blue sky) nothing special to me. --Granada (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It has pleasing colors and I can see what you might have been thinking, but per everyone else it just doesn't stand out. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination--Ermell (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Natuurgebied van It Fryske Gea. Wandeling over de Delleboersterheide 12.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2018 at 05:02:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Netherlands Head of Scottish Highlander
  •   Info Scottish Highlander cools in water. Location, nature Delleboersterheide - Cats Poele, in the Netherlands. Scottish Highlanders are deployed in nature areas of the Netherlands for nature conservation. All by created by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support great lighting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Martin. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition with high viewpoint. Sharpness and exposure not great. Charles (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Viewpoint, composition, grass in the foreground --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Exposure, disturbing grass in foreground.--Peulle (talk) 10:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per flaws noted by others plus overly warm WB. Daniel Case (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Cementerio, Tulcán, Ecuador, 2015-07-21, DD 44.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2018 at 08:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Mausoelum dedicated to the drivers "Ecuador" del Carchi in the cemetery of Tulcán, located in the city of Tulcán, capital of the Carchi Province, north of Ecuador. The cemetery, of a surface of 8 hectares (20 acres), was founded in 1932 to replace the former on that was damaged in the 1923 earthquake. José María Azael Franco Guerrero was back in 1936 in charge of the city parks and started topiary works in the Tulcán cemetery. In the meanwhile the cemetery park has become internationally popular in the art of topiary and was renamed in 2007 to cemetery Azael Franco to honour his work. Poco2 08:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 08:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support There is some purple fringing on the tires (neat touch they!) but I'm pretty sure you can fix that, and it's not anywhere near enough to really matter. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, that CA was even hard to see, it's gone now, I also adjusted the aspect ratio --Poco2 20:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 20:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I really like the light and clouds and this is a pretty motif, well-photographed. That said, is it possible to sharpen the top of the mausoleum just a bit? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan:   Done Poco2 10:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Pretty subtle difference to me, but I'll   Support anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Vitoria - Jardín de la Muralla - Fuente 01.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 18:50:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Fountains
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the idea, but it seems like this image tries to take in too much, and there may be CA in the water streams. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Idea could be nice but the composition seems too tight and the picture is a tad too dark for me (lighting condition aren't that good). --PierreSelim (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 01:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

File:20180331 OEHB Cup Final Stockerau vs St. Pölten Laura Klinger 850 5761.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 07:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The girls from the UHC Stockerau handball club won the Austrian handball cup 2018 in the final match on March 30th 2018 against Union St.Pölten. Here we can see Laura Klinger from the winning team scoring. -- Granada (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too messy--shizhao (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose That pole in the front ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The only thing I miss is a wider crop. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question - Granada, isn't the pole the goalpost? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is the right goal post. As most of the times I was sitting at one of the junctions of the goal area lines (marking the D-zone) with the goal line itself and that often leads to the goal posts becoming visible. I mostly like that. To the others: yes, it's not perfectly sharp, but I like the composition (including the quite tight crop) and thought I'll give it a try. On sunday there's a chance for photographing basket ball - a sports that I not yet had any luck of taking really good pictures of. --Granada (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Well, I find this photo exciting, and I don't find the unsharpness of the goalpost crippling to the quality because the focus is on the shooter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for several reasons. First, this massive beam on the foreground, blurry and distracting. Then, the heavy background with printed players on the wall looking like real players at first sight overloads the composition and makes it chaotic. Thirdly, the main subject is not really sharp. Also the goal on the left is cut ans thus too difficult to identify. Nice jump shot at the right time, but overall too many ruining elements -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Nordkirchen, Naturschutzgebiet Ichterloh -- 2018 -- 2320.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2018 at 05:07:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 05:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 05:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The blurry foreground is disturbing, and the scene is not special enough to compensate for that. Yann (talk) 06:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Had potential, but not with the shadow and unsharp foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blurry forground and shadows, I can live with one of these but not both. Also a perfect example of when "analogue editing" would have been great, that is picking up and removing that dead twig/branch/stick in front of the tree. --Cart (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I think it is a result. Thank you for your reviews. --XRay talk 10:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Bayerisches Nationalmuseum Munich, April 2018.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 May 2018 at 22:56:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info The Bavarian National Museum in Munich is one of the most important museums of decorative arts in Europe and one of the largest art museums in Germany. All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Fentriss (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC) (we have got the year 2018. Resolution is not enough. The pixels are not clean - shadowconflict, the street is in action like a chaos, The lightning could be more accurate - play with overexposing - show us a little bit more architecture of the building - wait for a fullmoon with little clouds - no wind - the clouds are moving - blurry, the wood on the left side fits not to the composing - waiting for wintertime here - pre-spring period, the whole scene needs more time - the person should not be there - the bikecycle - give the street a momentum of pause... wait for red traffic lights - the street will be empty.)
Well... okay... the resolution’s due to the fact that I had to crop the image (taken with my uwa lense kept perpendicular); the light trails are a feature, not a bug; the lighting is accurate; of course the clouds are moving, it’s a long exposure, and there’s always traffic on Prinzregentenstraße; but thanks anyway for disliking my image that much that you even felt compelled to post your first (?) contribution here. Normally I’m not bothered by negative votes. At all. Really. Here I’m honestly a bit flappergasted... sorry. —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Bitte nicht falsch verstehen. Aber ich habe vor dem Bauwerk schon Stunden verbracht, auf die Passanten, Fahrzeuge, auf eine schlichtere Dekoration vor der Fassade gewartet, und mir erschien bisher kein Zeitpunkt so richtig gut genug. Und auch hier, es ist noch nicht ausgereift. Die Fassade des Gebäudes selbst ist auch so unruhig, die Pixel der images sahen immer so "kaputt" aus, ich war nie zufrieden, somit konnte ich hier auch kein pro vergeben. Grüsse,richard --Fentriss (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
alles gut! :-) Stimmt schon, es ist recht knifflig dort —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I too find the moving light trails a distraction here. Charles (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support For Blue hour quite good --A.Savin 12:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I like so much about this, but that light trail swooshing across the signs at the bottom keeps this from FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose precisely per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 14:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info a very last minute attempt to address the issues mentioned above: Applying segments of a different frame taken a few moments earlier (and relying on my limited photoshop proficiency), I've both removed the sitting cyclist on the right and the annoying "swooshing" in the middle. Pinging Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, Johann Jaritz, Ermell, Fentriss, Charles, A.Savin, Neptuul, MZaplotnik, Ralf Roleček --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment still there across the billboards. Charles (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm undecided on FP, but this is a lot better and I've struck my oppose vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture#Germany

File:Hamburg’s Speicherstadt at night.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2018 at 13:50:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture#Germany

File:Nya Carnegiebryggeriet July 2017 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 08:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Sweden
  •   Info Sunset view of the Lumafabriken (The Luma factory), a historic modernist lamp factory built in the 1930s as one of the first functionalist industrial plants. In the foreground is Nya Carnegiebryggeriet (the new Carnegie brewery) founded in 2014 by Brooklyn Brewery and Carlsberg. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love the streaming clouds. Nice, sharp picture with good light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan -- P999 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support You handled the colors outstandingly well. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not sure about the WB here, too purplish, I believe --Poco2 08:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like their IPA & great light! --C-M (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Industry

File:A touareg at the Festival au Desert near Timbuktu, Mali 2012.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 May 2018 at 21:53:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

If some rule resulted in this amount of utterly blank space, IMO it was poorly applied. I don't think thirds is a rule, just one idea that can be good in some situations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't mind the composition; I like putting him off-center ... but the background is too noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    • What's important is the portrait, not the background. Yann (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  Question Then why is there more sky in the picture than him? Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good portrait. Yann (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Yann. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The off-center works very well here since his pose and clothes create diagonal lines. The sky could do with some work per Daniel, but it is a very gutsy and beautiful portrait. You can almost hear the talented Tinariwen in the background at what has to be one of the coolest (if hottest!) festivals in the world. --Cart (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'd prefer a portrait orientation, see note --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that big blue vastness confer something of the desert-feeling in the photo. That is what the sky feels and looks like when you're in a desert, big and empty. --Cart (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 14:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice colors, interesting subject, good quality image, but the eyes are in the shadow, and there's too much empty space on the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pugilist (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--shizhao (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The subject looks pretty authentic, the processing could have been better, though. A sharpening mask would have helped here both to reduce noise in the sky and improve the sharpness of the subject Poco2 08:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --C-M (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Feldkirchen Dietrichstein Dietrichsteiner See Nord-Ufer 19042018 2973.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 03:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Orangutan Kalimantan.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 04:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • On looking closer at the whiskers... Charles (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support great --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I would like to like it, but the unsharpness on the whiskers around his mouth keeps it from FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Whiskers are sharp enough. Consider how big the orangutan's face is at full size! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not 100% confirmed about the crop, but all in all FP to me --Poco2 08:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Cart (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:British shorthair cat-3113513.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 10:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • If you look at the hairs at the bottom, it certainly looks like crude background editing. Charles (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Unsharp back of cat is kind of distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the cut off shaddow in the front. --C-M (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Joan of Arc chapel-2290483.jpg, not featured , not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 16:21:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by Leroy Skalstad, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info A church from the 15th century, initially built in France, moved to New York in 1927, and then to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1964.
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Lovely picture at the height of flowering season; grain at full size is not visible at 300% of full screen on my laptop, so not a problem. However, the name of the file should be changed, as St. Joan was from Arc, not Ark, which is what Noah made, according to Genesis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Ah right, I am always confused between Arc and Ark. Yann (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 19:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Request The sky is very grainy. Is there anyway you can fix that, maybe smooth it out a little? -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The noisy sky and the subdued color just don't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A sharp photo but the sky is too noisy for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, the sky is noisy but the main problem I see here is the composition, that hand rail in front of the church spoils it to me --Poco2 08:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Maria Laach Kirche Flügelaltar Auferstehung 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 08:07:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Religion
  •   Info Resurrection of Christ at the winged altar of the parish- and pilgrimage church Maria Laach am Jauerling, Lower Austria. View for Sundays with closed inner wings. Anonymous master, 1480. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Your earlier photos File:Maria Laach Kirche Flügelaltar Sonntagsseite 03.jpg (set) and File:Maria Laach Kirche Flügelaltar Auferstehung 01.jpg (this frame) are quite different in colour and lighting. Perhaps this time the light was shining differently? The set photo shows the colour temperature looked ok for that, yet this one is a lot cooler. The image is brighter with more contrast (particularly the gold in the sky is no longer golden). Is that from a lighting change, or a result of post-processing (e.g., Clarity slider maxed out)? There's a bit of reflecting shine on the right of the photo, which isn't in the older one, and suggests the light direction wasn't optimal here. If the painting is really dulled with age, then I think we should show that rather than try to clean it up in post, which is my concern here. For a set of paintings like this, I think the value would be increased if you could make a high quality set nomination. -- Colin (talk)
  • @Colin: The older images are taken at pure natural light and a rather cheap consumer lens, while this time the altar piece was (unfortunately) illuminated by some spots and the image is taken with a professional lens. This makes the difference. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Happy to support good art photos --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Moroder. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry. I don't think the lighting on this is done well. The reflecting shine on the painting is not consistent with our best FP paintings. Also not convinced about the explanation for radical colour and contrast change -- a different lens would not make difference to anything other than sharpness. I think the sky should be gold, but the lighting angle / processing has caused it to be too bright. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic_media#Religion

File:Warwick Castle - Engine House, Waterwheel, Weir, and Old Castle Bridge.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 18:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Woman with hand-rolled cigarette.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 May 2018 at 10:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • "Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …" --Cart (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Love that you can see her sweat. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC) I am very against smoking. So I actually have to vote against. But it is a beautiful image. Therefore vote for.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People#Portrait

File:Nya Carnegiebryggeriet July 2017 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 08:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Sweden
  •   Info Sunset view of the Lumafabriken (The Luma factory), a historic modernist lamp factory built in the 1930s as one of the first functionalist industrial plants. In the foreground is Nya Carnegiebryggeriet (the new Carnegie brewery) founded in 2014 by Brooklyn Brewery and Carlsberg. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love the streaming clouds. Nice, sharp picture with good light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan -- P999 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support You handled the colors outstandingly well. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not sure about the WB here, too purplish, I believe --Poco2 08:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like their IPA & great light! --C-M (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Industry

File:Aureoboletus mirabilis (Murrill) Halling 681855.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2018 at 15:06:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /--Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Lob Жаворонки 95.jpg (delist), not delistedEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 10:58:40
 

  • Thanks. Wasn't on file page. Charles (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • If you look at the square with the "Assessment" template where it says: "This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images.", the word "considered" is always a link to the nomination page. --Cart (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, though the nomination page should always appear in the section "File usage on Commons". Charles (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist I am in favour of delisting it, for the following reasons: 1) I don't think the detail level is high enough, 2) I don't personally like the lighting either, 3) the composition - I don't see why a foodstuff should be placed on the ground like this in a staged photo..--Peulle (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep The nomination page says "Bread birds given to children who run in the field to call the returning birds." I'm guessing this is similar to how Easter eggs are hidden in a garden for children to find. See also File:Благовещенье в Кореньских родниках 2014 62.jpg. While not sure, this could well be a traditional practice or a common game children do with the "birds". I don't think the deslist process should be used when (a) the delister hasn't read the original nomination page or (b) because they'd have opposed and would like a chance to do so now. All the users who supported it 5 years ago are still active on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep I like the documentation of local traditions per Colin, the photo is good enough and the light is what you usually get down in the bushes on an early spring day. --Cart (talk) 13:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist - I think this should be a VI, but while I have no problem whatsoever with the composition and don't hate the lighting, I'd like a sharper photo of this motif for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist The eyes aren't sharp  . No seriously, per Peulle. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep I would have opposed the nomination at the time for insufficient "wow" factor, but for me delisting is for when our standards have surpassed what was formerly considered acceptable, rather than to overturn a validly promoted image from 2012. -- King of ♠ 00:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Colin and Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep as per others above. Yann (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Ralf Roleček 21:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Colin and Cart -- P999 (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Karelj (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Keep per above. --B dash (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Result: 5 delist, 10 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. A.Savin 12:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Part of birch trunk in Norrkila.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 10:41:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Betulaceae
  •   Info Drone photo of a snowy mountain range, salt desert or Mars?? Nope, it's part of a birch trunk. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Technically very good, and I do quite like the patterns in the bark since they make the imagination run free with ideas. On a side note, I also like that you've set the license of such an image to public domain.--Peulle (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Since about a year back, I set all my photos here on Commons to public domain. When I have the time I'll go back and change the rest too. That seems like the right thing to do on this project since it is only my hobby. --Cart (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - It took me a little while to find out what it was. Nice shot and something that triggers curiousity. --Pugilist (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not my type of FP, but the LHS seems over-exposed. Charles (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The sun is on that side and the birch is just very white. The light gradient from left to right gives the photo a pleasant depth. We can have white areas in a photo without crying out "overexposed", just like the white patches on Amy's face where no fur structure is visible. --Cart (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, nothing burnt here, but a lot of subtile shades of light grey -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:Andoin - Cascadas de la Tobería -BT- 08.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 17:46:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thank you Cart for all your suggestions about the image! --Basotxerri (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Whatever you say. It's real. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • shizhao is entitled to dislike deliberately-blurred water. I like it artistically, but he is right in saying it is not real. Charles (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, Charles, I think I've misunderstood the comment. Disliking blurred water is OK ;-) --Basotxerri (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I wish I had made this picture myself.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 08:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/Spain

File:Lucerne Pilatus Lake panoramic 1180662.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2018 at 14:06:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose Will support as soon as the dust spots have gone. Charles (talk) 09:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    •   Done I hope I found them all.--Ermell (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
      •   Support thanks. Nice shot. Charles (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Qualified support View is beautiful and striking enough to overcome some of the lack of detail in the distance (even accounting for the mists). Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think the haze is OK. Lovely view, as Charles and Daniel said. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 09:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Though I wonder if there is a slight clockwise tilt (looking at buildings). -- Colin (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment You were right. I tried to fix it.--Ermell (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Marsh fritillary (Euphydryas aurinia) male.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2018 at 15:10:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:MosMetro KomsomolskayaKL img3 asv2018-01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 May 2018 at 18:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • If Ikan is right then I   Support Charles (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors#Russia

File:Waterfall in Russian Gulch State Park.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 May 2018 at 14:33:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment I'm sorry that you don't like the image. For me, the trees add to the scenery. In the end, I'm personally interested in depicting the things like they are. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It is a nice shot of the waterfall but since the tree trunks are so prominent, the photo should have been composed around those instead. That would have included more of the trunk to the left. The blue shadow/yellow sunlight ration is not very well handled either, but that is correctable. --Cart (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  Comment "More of the trunk to the left"… sorry, I wouldn't have been able to deliver, even if we had talked before I went on the hike to photograph this place :-) What's not necessarily visible in this picture is the fact that I was standing at the end of a path – in the leftmost corner of that scene – right on the edge of a steep gradient. So, without a drone, no one will be able to deliver what you're asking for (which you couldn't know). I appreciate the feedback on the colors though and will look into this over the next couple of days. Thanks, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  Comment Cart Thanks again for the feedback. I agree that I didn't handle the blue colors well. I've made slight adjustments. As this is just a very minor correction, I replace the old file with a new version. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree about the tree trunks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  Comment I respect your feedback. Now, this is a serious question and I don't mean to offend you: what should I have done about the tree trunks? Are you saying it is impossible to take a featured picture of that scene unless someone (e.g. from the California State Park system) removes the trunks? I'm a bit at a loss when it comes to what I should have done differently. And I'm open to suggestions. This place is only three hours from where I live and I could easily go back next year. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what other angles are possible. If there's a way you could be further to the right, such that the tree trunks are over to the left and not or not significantly in the way of the waterfall, that would be best. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I hear you. I actually tried that as well. Problem is that there was another – living – tree to my right, which would then have covered the right part of the image (including some branches hanging down into the view of my wide angle lens). Whenever I take pictures, I really "work the scene", but this was the best I could do in this case. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
In that case, it might not be possible to take a photo of this motif that I'd consider an FP. However, this currently looks likely to pass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pretty obvious Frank. Hike up next year with a large step-ladder on your back and a set of support ropes to secure it and get snapping :-) Charles (talk) 08:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
That sounds like a plan :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel -- P999 (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles Poco2 08:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support good view. --B dash (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/United States

File:Daslook (Allium ursinum) d.j.b 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 05:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Allium ursinum #Family Alliaceae
  •   Info Allium ursinum. Small delicate flowers and flower buds on a slender stem. Allium ursinum is a rather rare species in Belgium and the Netherlands. The plant has a strong onion smell when the leaves are damaged. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The flower is quite small in relation to the overall image and does not have great depth of field or definition. Charles (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It is a small image, but there's just something transcendent about it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Elegant --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charlesjsharp--shizhao (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice bokeh and delicate subject Poco2 08:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:Felis silvestris catus lying on rice straw.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 05:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • You mean you are owned by the same kind of cat.   --Cart (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blown highlights on left hand side of face. Charles (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Really? I can see every hair on that side of the face. Are you sure you have the settings on your screen right? --Cart (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I am allergic to overexposed images and if I do not see it it is that there is surely no. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, cat lovers – I just see a resting cat. Good quality shot, but not very exciting. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Uoaei1 Poco2 08:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)

File:Scan the World - Venus de Milo.stl, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 10:22:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Other
  •   Info created and uploaded by Jonathanbeck - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Unusual and interesting. Should be a VI.--Peulle (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting and the first time I've seen one of these, so no idea if it's FP standard. The detail of the scan seems poor. Charles (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Am I missing something? This doesn't look nearly big or detailed enough for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I like the idea of this sort of thing being featurable, but without some way to better assess the detail (i.e., zoom in) I don't know about this one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Now that I've figured out how to zoom in, I concur with Cart about how poor the detail is. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Daniel, Charles, Ikan and all the rest. You spin the thing around with mouse movements but you zoom in on it with the scroll wheel (at least I did). Just do it gently, it is very tricky to maneuver (!) and before you know it, you have her navel covering your entire screen. I may have missed some finer control things. There should be some text about how to manage this in the file description. Also (AFAICS), this is not just something to look at, it is a digital blueprint for making this statue in a 3D-printer. --Cart (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Thanks. I tried using the middle button on my mouse. I didn't find it that easy to manipulate the way I wanted to, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Rotate with the mouse pointer, zoom with the scroll, and translate with the pointer while pressing the right button -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose highly interesting, useful, valuable, encyclopedic, etc. - but not a "Featured Picture" to a grumpy old man like me who longingly and fondly remembers the olden days when photos were still photos. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to selecting the file for Media of the day... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin from a grumpy old woman but mainly because we expect more from a computer image these days, more visual appeal a better user interface. It is a novelty on this forum, not so much in the programming community. I have also changed the FP category on the nom from "objects" to "Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Other" where it is more suitable. --Cart (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Ermita de San Bartolomé, Parque Natural del Cañón del Río Lobos, Soria, España, 2017-05-26, DD 04-08 PAN.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2018 at 08:33:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Good now. Charles (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Kiruna September 2017 01.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2018 at 07:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Aerial view of the town center of Kiruna with Kirunavaara and Kiruna Iron mine in the background. All buildings in the images will be demolished when the city center is to be moved 3 kilometers to the east. The mine undermines the current town center. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Clearly valuable but not a compelling composition for me. The buildings that make up the town are cut off in the foreground, giving the view a sense of tension and incompleteness to me. If FP were the only way we could acknowledge a photo, I'd be torn, but we do have VI to acknowledge the importance of photos that are not among the most outstanding compositions but are important in other ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thank you for you review. I disagree for different reasons; 1) the street in the foreground is a border between the town center and much less urban buildings; 2) you always have to cut buildings when taking aerial photos of a town (unless you using some wide-angle lens but (see 3 and 4); 3) the point here is not only the town center but also the relation between the town center and mount Kirunavaara and Kiruna Iron mine (the only reason this town exists in the middle of nowhere 200km north of the Arctic Circle); 4) a wide angle shot would reduce the mountain and mine to an anonymous background.--ArildV (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Was it taken from an aircraft? ("Aerial photo" should mean exactly this) --A.Savin 12:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan; it may well be historic and I would be interested in seeing Kiruna myself, familiar as I have become with another remote town 200 km above the Arctic Circle, but this just doesn't make it aesthetically. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's neither/nor ... I think the image should either be zooming in, showing something in particular, or zoomed out, showing more of the town and surroundings.--Peulle (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Peyriac-de-Mer, february 2018 (06).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 May 2018 at 05:47:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The street lights are like that, I guess for a decorative purpose, see File:Peyriac-de-Mer, february 2018 (02).jpg, the street lightsare coloured. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the clearification. Not sure I find it decorative, but thats not your fault, you get my   Support ;-) --C-M (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:White tailed eagle raftsund.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 May 2018 at 15:27:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
  •   Info created by C-M - uploaded by C-M - nominated by C-M. Picture of a white tailed eagle grabbing a fish at Raftsundet/Lofoten. I believe that my picture is slightly sharper than the existing picture and has a higher value for Wikipedia as it shows the typical hunting method by grabbing a fish from the water surface. Note that the articles in the german and english wikipedia use a square crop of this file to better fit the infobox, however I feel that this full file shows the dynamics better. -- C-M (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- C-M (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! Sure. Yann (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment This a lovely well-taken sharp image, but you need to sort out the tilted horizon and cropping - I would like more in front of the bird than behind (or at least the same). Charles (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC).
    Wow, how could I miss this? You are totally correct, I fixed the horizon. C-M (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, have a look on the image history. If you still see the tilt in the stones you may need to clear the browser cache (or open the page in a private browser window) C-M (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Fantastic, with all the trailing water droplets. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning shot! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Small fish for a big bird.--Ermell (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Wet-blanket oppose The bird is stunning alright, but the complicated background takes too much away from it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Request Hi C-M, very nice shot of an impressive action with a rather high level of details ! I certainly   support[update : change to   Neutral in favor to the alternative below -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)] but also want to suggest you to nominate this Alt version File:White_tailed_eagle_raftsund_square_crop.jpg that you created too, because I find the crop much better, making the subject eye-catching -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As mentioned in the description I prefer this one. Howerver, feel free to nominate the cropped Version if you want. C-M (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I find the very blue swimming pool-like waves at odds with the rest of the image but it is a good capture of the bird and you can't bee too choosy when you get such a shot. --Cart (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I could add an alternative with the blue less saturated, but that would be further away from reality than the current version - it was a blue sky day and the color is just as it came out of camera (or, to be precise, what Capture 1 thinks the colors should look like out of camera) --C-M (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Personal opinion: I would have given the bird a bit more lead room to the right. --Granada (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, as usual for this kind of photography: First consideration with framing is to actually keep the bird within the frame - dont ask how many amazing pictures I have which I scrapped due to some lack of important body parts ;-) There is simply no more pixels on the right side of my crop, but I dont think that is bad in this case as the splashing water behind the eagle is quite nice. --C-M (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Of course more lead on the right would be ideal, but depite that it's amazing quality. Charles (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Both versions are great, although both crops are not ideal. Maybe you can find something inbetween - the right border as in the original version, the left border wider than in the alternative version, top and bottom as in the alternative version. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Question - Would it be legitimate for me to instead oppose this photo in favor of the other one? I'd really rather that version won. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This one gives more attention to the bird and doesn't let the background overwhelm it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment This one loses the water droplets. Charles (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--shizhao (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support also fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Both versions are great, although both crops are not ideal. Maybe you can find something inbetween - the right border as in the original version, the left border wider than in the alternative version, top and bottom as in the alternative version. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The subject is really sharp and the capture great, but the image looks a bit awkward to me, on the eagle there are strong shadows and direct sun light, somehow this doesn't match the background. Furthermore there is a clearly visible halo around the subject, I think that the processing has room for improvement Poco2 09:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Poco: Turns out I had some image sharpening for screen enabled in my export settings, I reuploaded the files without sharpening. Regarding the light situation: note that this picture has been taken in early April above the arctic circle. The sun was in my back, shining at the rather shallow angle of 27° which is why there is light below the wings. I did however pull up the shadows a little bit in order to show more details below the wings. Here it comes to personal preference, I find these details important and as I somehow have to compress the large dynamic range of the scene available in my 14 bit raw file down into the 8 bit jpeg file there is no perfect solution. I also prefer hand drawn field guides over photos as they can exaggerate the details in feathers over what is visible in a photo, allowing the trained observer to distinguish the minute differences between some species. C-M (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
    Thank for your detailed explanation, the new version is not perfect but the halo is softer, you got my   Support Poco2 19:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
The chosen alternative is: File:White tailed eagle raftsund square crop.jpg

File:Alexander Dumas père par Nadar - Google Art Project.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 May 2018 at 17:17:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Nadar/Google Art Project, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info 1855 portrait of Alexander Dumas, the author of The Three Musketeers
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unsharp11!!1   Support Impressive how shallow a depth of field these old large format cameras had. C-M (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We have lots of FPs by Nadar. They are generally restored and/or have sharp focus on the eyes. While the subject is well captured, looks great as a small thumb, and is highly notable, I don't think this is among our finest such historical photos. -- Colin (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin, whose critique was so devastating, as usual, that it is not necessary for anyone else to look at the image full size. Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination It seems people elsewhere have more sense. Yann (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Home less dog sleeping, São Paulo downtown, Brazil.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 01:25:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This image was QI candidate but here I don't remember --The Photographer 22:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I remember reading Daniel's comment before. Could it have been in a Consensual Review on QIC? In any case, I will   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
(By the way, "homeless" is a single word in English.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There's a lot going on in this image and it's sort of hard to realize the dog is the subject. Also it's unsharp in places. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose My main objection to this picture is the tight crop on the right cutting a part of the stroller. The crop on the left is fine, but I feel missing something, a wall or a wheel, on the other side. Unfortunately this lack prevents me going further into the story -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel -- P999 (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Famille d’un Chef Camacan se préparant pour une Fête.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 May 2018 at 01:08:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.