Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2018

Contents

File:De Lelie and De Ster view from Island.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2018 at 14:26:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Rialto Bridge at night2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2018 at 17:11:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support - Quite good. "Rialto bridge at night" is a sufficient description. As for geotagging, someone could do that, but we know where the Rialto Bridge is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft (aggressive noise reduction), poor lighting on the bridge (clipped whites on portals and reflections). The quality of this picture is obviously below COM:QI requirements, hence also not meeting FP standards. --A.Savin 12:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. Additionally: A blue hour shot could work here but instead everything is black around the bridge. Neither is the quality there (excessive noise reduction, oversharpened, blurry off-center parts and so on), nor is this an outstanding composition in any way. I'm very surprised that we've got so many support votes nonetheless. --Code (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per opposers. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per previous. --The NMI User (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think pitch black is the prettiest light for this and the whites are very harsh --Trougnouf (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose – I agree with Code. Blue hour is almost always better than full night in urban environments. I'll admit, I'm impressed that the exposure is as balanced as it is. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Teddy-Express.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2018 at 15:25:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Absolutely charming :), but is there any chance of getting just a little bit more frame at the top? Just enough to get the top left little train signal not cut. I think that would also balance the photo better because of the empty space at the bottom between the tracks. Thoughts? --Cart (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Done --Llez (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Great, thanks. With the amount of guys here on this forum, I'm surprised we don't have any FP's of model trains (AFAICS). Think of the challenge to make it appear like a real train in a Kabelleger-esque photo. --Cart (talk) 22:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Tozina (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Reluctant oppose Yes, it would be very nice to have more model-train pics, and all the stuffed animals make this one irresistibly cute, but ... there's so many discordant diagonals in the image that it takes FP out of consideration for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not sure about the copyright status of this picture. --A.Savin 13:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment I think it corresponds to the FoP in Germany (permanent and accessible by the public); concerning the original: it was built 1942, i.e. 76 years ago. --Llez (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
    I don't know this place, but seems rather a movable object to me. This may disqualify it for being permanent in the sense of FoP laws. --A.Savin 02:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    A train is a movable object per se. I this case all cars, trains, plans and so on can't be photographed by this reason --Llez (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • But this is a minature, isn't it? In which case, aren't we talking about an exhibit in a permanent location, such as in a museum?--Peulle (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bad composition --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing extra, I do not see reason for nomination. --Karelj (talk) 10:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Ice planet and antarctic jellyfish.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2018 at 00:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals#Class_:_Scyphozoa
  •   Info Diplulmaris antarctica jellyfish in Antarctica. One of the finalists in the Wiki Science Competition 2017. Created and uploaded by AMICE - nominated by Rhododendrites. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The detail on the jellyfish itself is nice, and I like the way the light field frames it. The filename should probably be moved away from "ice planet" since it's, well, technically inaccurate :) but that's sort of what it looks like. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:29, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Nice animal, but distracting blue light in the background, and I find the crop too large. -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Rhododendrites. I can see his point about changing the name but ... it would make a good sci-fi paperback cover. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This one keeps growing on me. I can't pull away from that jellyfish and eerie light in that big dark place. --Cart (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 22:47, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moahim (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support --Laitche (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 05:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals#Class_:_Scyphozoa

File:Close up of Maitreya Buddha at Thiksey Monastery DSCN6617 1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2018 at 06:55:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places #India
  •   Info created by Sumita Roy Dutta - uploaded by Sumita Roy Dutta - nominated by Sumita Roy Dutta -- Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice, but the top and left crops are a bit short for FP. Do you have more? Yann (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks Yann for your valuable comment. I have other image from diff angle but this one I had taken to get closure view of face. Sumita Roy Dutta (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I like this photo, but could you possibly add a little more on top and on the left? I'd like the whole ear and some of the head covering everywhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too tight crop. Cropped blue line is an instant oppose for me. This really could be a FP with the top recovered a bit. -- Pofka (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Exterior of the Castle of Valencay 31.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2018 at 07:07:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Red-tailed bumblebee (Bombus lapidarius) male on cornflower ed.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2018 at 13:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
  •   Info I am nominating this image with the background altered. You may prefer the as-shot version below. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - This version is better, though you probably removed more bokeh stalks than necessary. I may be jaded by an excess of great insect closeups in not being wowed by this, but I recognize that it's a very good closeup of a bee. I'd wish for the nearest petals to be clearer, but I understand why that was probably impossible if you wanted a clear closeup of the bee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This version is ok for me too, Tournasol7 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternative image with original background.



Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Amphitrite Collet.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2018 at 15:00:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks, but you didn't have to remove the French-language description! But anyway, is there any way for you to lessen the color noise on parts of the sculpture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Descriptions in several languages ​​are recommended. The photo is used on two pages of wikipedia in French. It is logical that the description be first in French. I don't make pictures for FP. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course, but when I wrote that, it appeared that the French-language description had been removed. This is a good photo, but I'm still not sure that with the color noise, it's an FP, so if someone held a gun to my head and demanded a vote, it would probably be in opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Cape Point, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-23, DD 105.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2018 at 21:42:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Holi at Basantapur-0272.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2018 at 12:48:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Other
  •   Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 12:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 12:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good composition, IMO, and I feel the joy of the crowd just by looking at this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A crowd of colorful people mostly from the back --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I was not very excited at first sight with this one, and the more I'm looking at it, the less I like it unfortunately. Another crowd in India we've had featured because it was really excellent is this File:Khandoba_temple_Pune.jpg. But this one, as Uoaei1 said, is mostly visible from the back. The foreground with all these heads hidden is particularly bothering, and the picture in its whole is too contrasted with dark colors. The atmosphere looks great, but the resulted image not so impressive -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

File:20180930 UCI Road World Championships Innsbruck Men Elite Road Race Valverde wins 850 2058.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2018 at 07:08:36 (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) 07:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Granada (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - exciting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Exciting, yes, but the bright and colorful background is too much of a distraction for me to support this as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 17:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harsh light, the shadows are very dark, and the background is too busy -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great shot, love their faces! But I'll have to agree with Daniel, the background at the top is a tad too distracting for FP (although it works much better at screen size than I would have expected from the thumbnail). And somehow I can not un-see that lonely specular highlight at the center-left (reflection on someone's wristwatch?) --El Grafo (talk) 08:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose And there's no sun shining on the racers. Charles (talk) 08:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'll go back in time and change the setup. Thanks for the hint. --Granada (talk) 09:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Granada (talk • contribs)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Dorcus parallelipipedus female.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2018 at 19:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info focus stacked image of the head of a female lesser stag beetle (Dorcus parallelipipedus). One of the winners of the 2017 Wiki Science Competition. created and uploaded by Sebastián J.L - nominated by RhododendritesRhododendrites talk |  19:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  19:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment At first I thought it was some prop from Game of Thrones... Anyway, the Exif doesn't contain any data about the camera and it has the size at 5,472 x 3,648 px while the uploaded photo is 3,000 x 2,171 px. So the eternal question is: Do we feature something that is probably downsized or do we wait for the original file? --Cart (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Good point, Cart. Also, it would be good to know what the magnification is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would think that if the image is within the size parameters it does not matter if it was downsampled. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it's a deserving candidate, but a science shot should include magnification, and downsampling is a bad practice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral   Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. --Moahim (talk) 05:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Do you have some more like this in your fridge? --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow. Just ... wow.--Peulle (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support impressive. Charles (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Something completely different, and a hot POTY'18 contender. --A.Savin 10:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a great image and since I see now that the downsizing issue apparently is relative, I'll support it too. I am a bit surprised though to find people who have previously said that downsized photos are no-go, supporting this. I would prefer it not being downsized, but if it's ok with the community, who am I to argue. --Cart (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, great image. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 06:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 08:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Benh (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --99of9 (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Ponteceso - Virgen del Faro -BT- 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2018 at 20:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I need this issue resolved before I can support. Before voting, I want to know what I'm looking at. I can find no Wikipedia article about this, and according to Google Maps, the location (as given in the geocode) is "Nosa Señora do Faro", which doesn't tell me anything either.--Peulle (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Ikan Kekek and Peulle, of course Virgin is correct, my fault. So I'm going to explain this place: it's the top of Monte do Faro, the Lighthouse Mountain. There have been built two constructions, one is the Lighthouse monument (Torre do Faro), the other is an old chapel. Please see here and here. The local newspaper wrote some article about it in 2009 (in Spanish). Hope this helps... Anyway, it's quite strange that there is so little information about the place because the Lighthouse column can be seen very well from the surroundings. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --The NMI User (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Virgin? It looks very much male to me. :oD Yann (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a point... --Basotxerri (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but this is a bit too simple to convince me --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like what you'd see smoking the world's largest cigarette ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For Uoaei1 --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Simplistic and minimal. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moahim (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, quite striking. I would have maybe preferred a more balanced cloud field instead of having them bunched up near the top, but no big deal. As a side note, I'm enjoying the contrasting Freudian interpretations of this structure. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Juliancolton: Could you please elaborate on the "Freudian interpretations" part of your comment, I'm curious what that means :o :) ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 23:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Since Freud thought everything was about sex, I'm sure he'd say something about this 'erection' being constructed in order to 'compensate' for something. ;) --Peulle (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Uoaei1. --Karelj (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not convinced here, either Poco2 18:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:2018 - Комплекс Києво-Печерської лаври.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2018 at 08:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose Colors doesn't look very natural to me. Trees and grass looks over saturated (too yellow/lime green). Buildings (especially the tower) also shines too bright and reminds The Lord of the Rings computer-generated scenes. -- Pofka (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC) - Such colors are due to the polarizing filter. As for me it does not look unnatural. Thank You. --Moahim (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info Formerly FPD-d now active again. --Cart (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Sorry, didn't mentioned it. I have to do something with this nomination by myself? --Moahim (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Other users will take care of it. --Cart (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • My nomination.--Claus 16:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC) - Thank You! --Moahim (talk) 05:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment For those who wonder what happened, Claus Obana just took over the nomination from Moahim to keep it running. --Cart (talk) 18:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm OK with this one. Wish the wind hadn't been blowing, but the colors work well for a spring dawn. Daniel Case (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 19:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Orthodox Church of the Holy Spirit 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2018 at 10:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- -- Pofka (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -- Pofka (talk) 10:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 11:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry have to do this to a Diliff, but the scene is just too stretched and contorted, plus the shadows are so lifted/reduced that it has lost the 3-dimensional feeling and looks more like a print from a story book. There is nothing wrong with having a bit of depth in such a photo. --Cart (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @W.carter: This interior is illuminated very well by the windows. Shadows were not removed as you can see them at the left corner and on the floor. -- Pofka (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  • @Pofka: Well, if no shadows were lifted, then I'd say it is photographed at the wrong time of day, giving the sun too much access to all the parts of the church. I know that most photographer usually want to get everything as well lit as possible, but in doing so you sometimes lose the effect of depth and drama in an image. These two photos are a very good example of this: sunlight and shadow. The photos are taken handheld from the same place at roughly the same angle. They have been post-processed in exactly the same way. The first is well lit with sunlight everywhere, like the church here. You can see every part of the rocks in great detail, but it's flat and uninteresting. In the second photo, the shadow of a cloud passed over the quarry, dulling the cliffs in the background, but in this photo you can clearly distinguish the cliffs from each other and you get a sense of depth in the photo. I'm not asking for anything so extreme here, but some gradient in the light would have saved this from looking as flat as it does now. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent work --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart, plus the crepuscular rays in the dome really don't work like this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I kind of like the sunlight and I'm tempted to support, but either way, everyone should please note that there's already one FP of this church, which Mr. Iliff himself nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks Ikan, that photo has all the shadows and depth I was looking for. --Cart (talk) 09:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart, and also quite similar to the existing FP.--Peulle (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Bursa granularis 01.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 13:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC) - Only one vote per user. See Category:Sockpuppets of Livioandronico2013. --Cart (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Garden snail moving down the Vennbahn in disputed territory (DSCF5879).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 16:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Lagarto (Agama atra), cabo de Buena Esparanza, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-23, DD 81.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 18:39:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Rue Arsene Vermenouze in Aurillac 03.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 14:42:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#France
  •   Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 14:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, not very special to me. Nice curve, but not much else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Do You have a photo with more upper part? Nice street, but the upper part is missing, as for me.--Moahim (talk) 16:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Unfortunately I haven't... I was taken other photo with upper part of buildings, but it was overexposed. Tournasol7 (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I like where this is going but ... it doesn't show it getting there. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sign and garbage bin are not attractive, and per Ikan and Moahim -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nice Q1photo, but not special enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Bank of pink clouds reflected in the roof of a blue car.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2018 at 22:03:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I think that any leaning is so slight it can be ignored. I didn't want to do any perspective correction since it can disrupt the symmetry of the reflection. --Cart (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful clouds, awkward reflection. It would be a lake, maybe. But there are 3 problems now with this mirror effect : 1) the DoF is too shallow because the car is close to the camera, so at full size the reflection is completely out of focus and not pleasant at all, 2) What makes a reflection beautiful in general in a photo is produced by the surface, and the texture of the material, subtle waves for example with water or polished tiles. Here a roof of a car doesn't make this elegant reflecting surface. It's a creative shot (giving the illusion of water at first sight), but deceiving when we start zooming, 3) The contours of the reflecting plan and the intersection with the horizon are unclear and make this car, which doesn't belong to the landscape, intrusive. Sorry, this is not working for me. I also find the image rather dark with uninteresting black silhouettes in the middle. So nice colorful clouds certainly, but not a successful composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Basile's critique. A great idea that was worth trying, nevertheless. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Not so much an idea as that I saw something different and took a picture of it. :) But worth a try as you say. --Cart (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
discussion on DoF and mirrors
  •   Comment Just to point out the laws of physics state that "For all planar mirrors, the object and virtual image are positioned equal distances from the reflecting surface". So the clouds and the reflected clouds are essentially equidistant from the camera wrt DoF concerns. The car roof paintwork is not acting as a perfect mirror and is slightly convex. The DoF is not "too shallow", and greater DoF would not bring the reflected clouds into "focus", but would bring any dirt or scratches into focus. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Dirt and scratches yes, but also more details of the clouds. Laws of perfect mirrors are not valid here, since the surface is diffuse. For a better approximation of the optics in this particular case, here are some basic principles concerning the surface reflectance. I'm not saying this surface would be pretty to look at (that's in my second point), but at least the reflection would not be blurred like that. I studied physics and optics at the university and worked in illumination systems for trucks dashboards in Siemens VDO in Germany for my final project -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Guys please, let's not overthink this. I photographed something different that caught my eye. You either like it or you don't, simple as that. --Cart (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • In which regard does it matter that you studied "physics and optics"? --Code (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Since we're talking physics and optics -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Forget physics and optics, it all comes down to that I should have washed my car better. I need to keep this in mind for future photos. ;) --Cart (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Exactly  , if this car had been polished like a crystal ball, the reflecting clouds would have been perfectly identical to those above, whatever the DoF. But since this paint is certainly partially opaque, it can never be assimilated to a perfect mirror, and thus a larger DoF would have shown the wonderful texture of this roof, to give a clue about its reflectance. Now, unfortunately you just have the diffuse part of a semi-reflecting material out of focus and that's not, in my humble point of view, extremely sexy :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This explanation in picture : File:Variation_of_DoF_on_mirror_vs_diffuse_surfaces.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Well I think FPC can be a place to learn, as well as see pretty pictures. The surface is only partly diffuse, otherwise you would not see a recognisable refection with detail. The reflected clouds really are kilometres away, not 2m away. The scattering of light by the imperfect surface is not something that any degree of focusing or increasing DoF can recover, so the unclear reflection cannot be fixed by better technique. If one focused on the car roof, say, one would see the orange-skin paint surface texture, or dirt, and the clouds would be even less clear. It is possible to get an image on a diffuse surface that is at focus at the diffuse surface itself -- this occurs when you watch a film at the cinema. In this case, the image has been focused with a lens onto the surface itself. That is not the case here. For what it's worth, I like the clouds and the reflection is fine, but the middle bit is rather dark. I think this is a good idea for a photo, and it could be tried another time (with clean car!), which is also why I think it important to understand that "shallow DoF" is not the problem here. -- Colin (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • If you want this color on the clouds, the surrondings are bound to be on the dark side since this was just before the sun set. I could brighten the center, but I like to keep my photos as much as what I saw as possible. --Cart (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • No, I wouldn't fiddle (too much) with reality. Woodland is a light-sink at night and not much can be done about it. I guess I'm more looking for either the middle to be so thin you don't care about it, bright enough to be interesting (light coloured buildings or illuminated city?) or silhouette (File:Arran sunset.jpg). -- Colin (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice idea. Great clouds, lovely colours. At least something different. I don't think there's a DoF issue, the surface might not be perfect for a clear reflection but reflections are rarely perfect. --Code (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The grain is too high for me.--Peulle (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Cart (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:GNV Atlas (ship, 1990), Sète 2018.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2018 at 05:20:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:STS120LaunchHiRes-edit1.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2018 at 06:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Space launch vehicles
  •   Info created by NASA and edited by Jjron - uploaded by Jjron - nominated by Pine -- Pine 06:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pine 06:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A strong wow, but unfortunately it is quiet small --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit small yes, but the quality is there, and the composition good, taken at the right moment -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I'm not sure this is the best possible image we have of a space shuttle launch, but it is FP quality, especially considering what an exposure nightmare that blast would have created. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It might have been big enough for an FP in 2007, but now, 11 years later, I think it's not.--Peulle (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Now, it's a historic photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I want just a little bit more space on the top though. --Laitche (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Space exploration#Space launch vehicles

File:20180925 UCI Road World Championships Innsbruck Men Juniors ITT Remco Evenepoel 850 8465.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2018 at 15:10:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support --GeXeS (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KTC (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Michielverbeek -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Abstain after Granada decides to withdraw, not signing her edit as always (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) Time lost for everyone. So better to leave early, to avoid the related delist nom which may follow next. I can understand the frustration for the second nomination which is about to fail, but honestly these two simultaneous withdrawals sound too much like an unreasonable whim -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • We all lose faith in this forum at one time or another, assuming bad faith like a upcoming delisting doesn't help. Please keep it mellow. --Cart (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's not assuming bad faith, just putting this withdrawal in its context. After several warnings, why continuing not to sign one's withdrawals ? We can stay mellow, and I find positive to maintain this candidature alive, maybe I will vote next time, but not only to support always, also to oppose sometimes if necessary -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Car in the background is too disturbing --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have to agree with Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good shot. I disagree with the opposers; the car must be there, it's the car used by the race director and it should be behind the rider so it does not obscure the view or get in the rider's way. The DoF - which is perfect btw - solves this issue by not focusing on the car, but the rider.--Peulle (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • +1 Maybe this bicycle would have been great isolated from its background too, but the picture would just have not been the same. These cars are very important and visible in any cycling competition, so I find normal to see one here behind, slightly off, so the champion is still very distinguishable and in focus in the center -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support For Peulle --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC) Banned user. Yann (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Peulle. This is just what such an event looks like and Granada has managed to isolate the biker perfectly from all the commotion going on around him. Well done! --Cart (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 17:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --El Grafo (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Eh? Why? It's clearly on track to pass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Sports has no lobby at FPC. I'm the only one contributing. I give up. --Granada (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
13-2 is not a close vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Please Granada, since you are one of the very few contributing with these kind of photos, they are all the more valuable. Please don't give up! And please reopen this nomination, it's a winner. --Cart (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Cart, thank you very much for your support, I've reopened the nomination, but anyways I'll refrain from nominating more pictures though I thought I had some more from the UCI world road championships in Innsbruck last week. --Granada (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Granada, well this forum can be a bit hard on things that are not churches and birds on twigs. Believe me, I know. ;) If you like, you can leave links on my talk page for the files you consider and I can give you some comments on how they might be regarded at FPC. Keep up you good work and don't let the opposes here get you down, the whole thing is often called a roulette. --Cart (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Sports

File:Painted door (Ponsho). Funchal, Madeira.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2018 at 11:11:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:46-233-0009 Svirzh Castle RB 18.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2018 at 18:51:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • No, but this is HDR, because of wide dynamic range. --Rbrechko (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Thanks. This HDR processing doesn't work for me. Charles (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a nice composition, but the colors looks too over-processed to me, giving the scene an unnatural appearance. --Cart (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but not really enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lacking sharpness --Llez (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:The Bullring Building.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2018 at 16:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith nominated by -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC) Banned user. I reverted his upload. Yann (talk) 05:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --GeXeS (talk) 17:15, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm not finding the composition to work. My eye isn't led anywhere rewarding. The sky is oddly dark either from a graduated filter or polarising filter. The "sequinned dress" surface is interesting, but as a building, hmm, not so sure. -- Colin (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like looking at this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting abstraction, but the dark angle of sky is really annoying, because the geometrical structure with its irregular movement and subtle shades of contrast is great -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks quite unnatural (sky, contrast) --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done --Σπάρτακος (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support now -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC) --   Abstain per sock puppetry of the nominator -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Σπάρτακος please revert your change to this photo. It is not your photo and Mdbeckwith is a user here who can make changes to his image should he want to. Per COM:OVERWRITE you must upload your altered version to a new filename, and per the CC licence, you must indicate that this is altered from the original. Any new file would then have to be presented here as an alt. Please respect that this image is created/adjusted how the author wanted, and isn't uploaded here simply so that others can tweak it to suit their own tastes. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Colin,Michael is a my friend and He writes me on my mail "Personally I am going to leave the photograph alone. You do have my permission to edit it if you want to. Also here is a link to the lossless TIFF if you want to edit that instead of JPEG. You can share the TIFF as well if you want.http://www.mediafire.com/file/o2bmtm64x0ljed1/160_Salford_Cathedral_Memorial_Chapel_TIFF.rar

Hope this helps. :)" If it is not enough I can always restore it--Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That's fine. But please mention "edited with permission" in future. -- Colin (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok Colin, I'll do it. I'm sorry for my mistake, and I apologize --Σπάρτακος (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is a good way of photographing this building, but this photo is not it. The dark sky gradient is also too much and it can't be reverted right in jpeg, it has to be done from raw. --Cart (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose per Cart. Also, I think the clouds screw things up—there are some blown (or almost blown) areas of the building near the one at the upper left corner, and generally they're a slight distraction the image doesn't need. Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Saturn Hall ceiling in Palazzo Pitti (Florence).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2018 at 18:37:01 (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 is a nomination created by a repeated sock offender (Category:Sockpuppets of Livioandronico2013) currently under discussion at the FPC talk page. --Cart (talk) 20:14, 3 October 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.
  •   Question Shouldn't this be an FPD rather than an FPX, then?--Peulle (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Technically no, since the account only had two active noms. This was the best way to label this. We just have to put up with this for a while yet until it can be removed. --Cart (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. :) --Peulle (talk) 12:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Boy with a Basket of Fruit by Caravaggio.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2018 at 18:34:25 (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 is a nomination created by a repeated sock offender (Category:Sockpuppets of Livioandronico2013) currently under discussion at the FPC talk page. --Cart (talk) 20:14, 3 October 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, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:ET Bahir Dar asv2018-02 img08 Blue Nile at the bridge.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2018 at 12:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Touzrimounir: When you 'oppose' a photo, you have to give a reason for it. That is the rule. --Cart (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Shame, shame.   I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 14:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:2018 - Резиденція митрополитів Буковини і Далмації - панорама.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2018 at 06:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

- As You can see on this image File:2017 - Чернівці - Резиденція митрополитів Буковини і Далмації - панорама.jpg it is not gradient - there are such clouds on the sky. And the trees are quite rhythmic and form an interesting symmetry (as for me). Thank You. --Moahim (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. It is quite a coincidence then that the trees are also darker in the same part as the sky. It adds to the illusion. --Cart (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not only per Cart, but with so many trees it seems like they want to be the only subject of the image. Something like the center would work better. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination --Moahim (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Pont de Caylus.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2018 at 12:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I've just seen the spider... Charles (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Vrchotovy Janovice - castle - main gate.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2018 at 18:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Adámozphoto - uploaded by Adámozphoto - nominated by Adámoz -- Adámoz (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adámoz (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Subject, composition, perspective. Charles (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. I'm a little surprised this passed QIC with that perspective issue. --Cart (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not acceptable even as QI with the perspective issue. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:31, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, CA also visible. — Draceane talkcontrib. 19:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
      Comment Moreover, this is similar to Adámoz's edit style we know on Czech Wiki – nominations of his stubs for GA and FA. — Draceane talkcontrib. 19:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Japanese garden pond at Daisen Park in Sakai, October 2018 - 381.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2018 at 19:00:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Japan
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laitche (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't get this... Charles (talk) 20:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I do. It's an image which includes both perspective and a lovely water scene with a nice building at the end. Nature meets a tranquil space, coupled with the straight wood moving on to the right away from the viewer. Despite this, though, the light is a bit dull and I also think the shot is overprocessed, so I must   Oppose.--Peulle (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't see the use to include this dark roof and balcony in the composition, and find the light dull -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I knew it! :) --Laitche (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Fortifications of Capdenac 03.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2018 at 22:38:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Nest of oecophylla smaragdina (weaver ants).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2018 at 00:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • This is a nest met in the countryside, and I find the light better than here-- Basile Morin (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Like Daniel says, it's a pretty chaotic image. That can been helped if there are overall lines or shapes to define the subject. Here such a shape is the outline of the leaf "clump", but it is unfortunately cut. I sort of miss the top 1/3 of this image. A darker (or more uniform) background would also helped define the outline of the subject and made it more pleasing to the eye. Good idea, just not executed all the way. --Cart (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I find beauty in the chaos. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, high educational value. --Yann (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For others --Architas (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC) -- Invalid vote (sockpuppet of a banned user) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Basile, in other nominations, including some still on this page, he's been allowed one vote, so should this vote be restored or should all his other votes be deleted? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • This user has been banned eight months ago, so is not allowed to vote here anymore. Changing one's name to go unnoticed and using multiple accounts is perfidious. These double votes prove that the intention was definitely dishonest and pure vandalism. I felt embarrassed many times before with these false accounts that I suspected fake too, with no mean to prove the cheating. These "oppose" looked like revenge in many situations, but were just accepted. Now there's no way to keep this vote here. As a nominator, I take the responsibility to strike it out, and if the author is unhappy, they can always try to remove their block by solving their issue with the admins. Not my problem. I will not fix the previous nominations that these fake votes also polluted, but as long as this one is active, I just put this poor review in the garbage. And I think all the other nominators should feel free to decide what to do in their own situations. The past discomfort is certainly worth this pleasure. We should not let us get attacked sneakily like that, because if we keep these votes, then it's too easy to start again, creating a new account, get quickly 50 edits to be allowed to vote, and then change the consensus for personal reasons. Even if we manage to stop them later (and too late), they would have enjoyed their misconduct. So not this time, sorry. Inadmissible -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Basile here. --Yann (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree, too, but then his votes should be subtracted from other active nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Charles (talk) 11:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Formicidae_(Ants)

File:2018 Stupa w Gompie Drophan Ling w Darnkowie 02.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2018 at 12:40:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support--Σπάρτακος (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC) - Only one vote per user. See Category:Sockpuppets of Livioandronico2013. --Cart (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   weak oppose Nice picture, good quality, but there are no wow for me. --Rbrechko (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose A photo is not used to make wow - overexposure --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  • S. DÉNIEL is being disruptive. This image is not overexposed. Charles (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • look down there are two positive votes --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @S. DÉNIEL:Per Charles. You seem to be repeatedly opposing all images you vote on. Once again, your vote is on a faulty basis, hence we can surely ignore it. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 06:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @GerifalteDelSabana: No one is going to ignore any votes here, however irritating or irrational. One user one vote. A good reason for the 'oppose' is very strongly recommended, but not all users get this due to language barriers or some other reason. Don't get us started on some new voting controversy when we are right in the middle of the biggest we've had here at FPC. --Cart (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @S. DÉNIEL: If you have difficulties in making yourself properly understood in English, please leave your comments in French (or another language you are comfortable with), there are many users who understand and speak it. That way nothing gets "Lost in translation" or manner of speaking, since French has a way of using one-word-comments in a way English doesn't. It's a sure way to be misunderstood. --Cart (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Bonjour et merci. C’est effectivement très difficile pour moi de parler anglais et une traduction automatique est source de mutuelles incompréhensions. Je constate qu’il ne faut pas beaucoup de votes négatifs pour que certain y voit une série d’agression incohérente (surtout si ça les arrange – je ne parle pas de vous évidement). Regardez la page de vote, dans son entier, et vous constaterez que je ne vote pas plus négativement qu’un autre. Je comprends que des votes négatifs peuvent énerver des gens très motivés. Ils peuvent sembler injustes. Cela dit il ne faut pas confondre demande d’explication et demande de justification et transformer une justification en remise en cause. À ce compte tout et tout le monde peut être jugé inapte ou incompétent. Sur les votes eux-mêmes, nous mettons un motif et souvent un seul pour justifier un vote. Pourquoi accabler une photo d’une litanie de points négatifs. Donc, sur cette photo je trouve les blancs brûlés, mais je trouve aussi que le cadrage n’est pas très judicieux. Le monument aurait été mieux sur le deuxième tiers. On préfère généralement qu’une personne ou une façade ne soit pas tournée contre le cadre. Les courbes des collines en arrière-plan renforce bien la focalisation du regard sur l’ouvrage – c’est bien – mais il renforce aussi le déséquilibre dû au point précédent. Ce cadrage a été choisi pour qu’on puisse voir les drapeaux mais pour moi ils sont plutôt secondaires (trop petits). Personnellement j’aurais choisi un cadrage carré qui permette d’éviter ce problème. Si je n’ai pas mentionné ces points, c’est que j’ai remarqué que certains s’obligent a suivre les remarques des contradicteurs pour obtenir leur étoile. Je n’aime pas trop cette pratique qui ressemble plus a une contrainte qu’a un conseil. Enfin ces drapeaux ont probablement une importance d’un point de vue encyclopédique et il serait donc idiot de demander de les enlever. Croyez bien, que si mon commentaire est laconique, il repose sur une observation attentive et raisonnée. Cordialement.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • S. DÉNIEL: Merci beaucoup pour votre réponse. Je comprends très bien le français, mais je ne peux pas l'écrire. Seulement très mal. En tout cas, nous avons maintenant un meilleur moyen de communiquer. Je ne pense pas que vous ayez donné trop "d'opposés". Je pense qu'à l'avenir, il serait préférable que vous soyez moins laconique dans vos critiques. De cette façon, nous pouvons éviter les malentendus. J'ai également apprécié la lecture de votre analyse réfléchie et complète de la photo. C'est à partir de commentaires comme celui-là que nous apprenons. FPC ne consiste pas seulement à voter pour des photos, il consiste également à apprendre les uns des autres et à partager des idées sur la photographie. Et s'il vous plaît, laissez vos commentaires en français. Ceci est un site international. Une bonne critique en français vaut mieux qu'une courte en anglais qui peut être mal comprise. Peut-être Ikan, qui parle beaucoup mieux le français que moi, pourrait vous en dire plus. --Cart (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Cart, je doute vraiment que mon français est meilleur que le votre. En tout cas, S. DÉNIEL, je suis satisfaite que vous avez établi votre bonne foi et je vous remercie d'expliquer plus votre opinion. Je suis d'accord avec Cart qu'il soit bien d'expliquer vos votes plus dans le futur si vous voulez. C'est normale qu'on peut disputer vos opinions, mais j'espere que beaucoup de gens liront vos paroles ici et au moins pausent sinon arrêtent de douter votre sincerité. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Merci de parler ainsi ma langue. Je ferais comme cela, en espérant que cela ne dérange pas trop.--S. DÉNIEL (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, bright but well within limits. --Cart (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Micrasterias rotata.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2018 at 08:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Other lifeforms#Algae
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Anatoly Mikhaltsov - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Photograph of a beautiful desmid alga (more about the creature here). User:Anatoly Mikhaltsov, if you're still reading, please indicate the magnification, or if anyone can decipher it from the exif, add it, but if this is 63x, well, the nominee is much bigger. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. A scale would indeed be appreciated. --Cayambe (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The algae is beautiful, but is all that gray area surrounding it really necessary? A square crop a little tighter might be better. Now the image looks like some new nation's flag. --Cart (talk) 13:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I take your point. User:Anatoly Mikhaltsov is active today, so perhaps he'll come by and address our concerns. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Cart here. I also find the crop too large and would have preferred a square. Plus the color of this background is not neutral like grey, but slightly yellowish, so not aesthetic. I may vote later -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Good photo, but inadequate description. More information about the species would be appreciaced. Information about the equipment, especially ocular and objective magnification and total size of the object completely lacking. Also lacking: the locality, where the photo was taken (institute and so on). --Llez (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing picture. The description should be further improved. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree and left a message on the photographer's user talk page earlier today. I hope he does find the time to address our concerns. If anyone who reads Russian would like to try posting on his user talk page in Russian, that might help, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, I tried my hand at Google Translate, too. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Still, I'd like more information. --Yann (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moahim (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Other lifeforms#Algae

File:Fireworks over Houston, Texas (LOC).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2018 at 18:42:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Carol M. Highsmith, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info This image was nominated before, but failed due to double voting, I renominate it again. Yann (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Upon reflection, I oppose this one. Some of the buildings aren't sharp and there's a black border on the left. As for the wow factor: yes, there is some, but to paraphrase the guideline used for sunset images, "all fireworks are beautiful". This one does not seem too exceptional. --Peulle (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quite nice in preview, but unfortunately much too blurred at the right. --A.Savin 19:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment That's a lot of smoke on the left. -- KTC (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Unlikely to succeed. Thanks for your votes. Yann (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Leuchtturm Helgoland Düne.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2018 at 21:01:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Exactly, the image looks a bit oversaturated and maybe a bit underexposed. Further, the image IMO would gain a lot if you could eliminate the three people on it. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oversaturated And it is not often that I say this. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
    •   Support It looks like the luminance on the red has been suffiiciently decreased. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

::*  Support sorry I voted too quickly with the memory of the previous version.

  •   Info This vote along with the {{oppose}} by the same user below, will remain striked until S. DÉNIEL has decided how he wants to vote. This vote is also invalid since it is unsigned. --Cart (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Please sign this post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info Strong colours look strong in very shine conditions. I have reduced nevertheless the colour intensity and have brighten it up. Please have again a look at it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • The red color is always a bit troublesome when it comes to digital cameras since the sensor is prone to shift that part of the spectrum into infrared. If you have big red areas in a photo, correction is almost always necessary to make it look natural. This is much better. --Cart (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - This photo has grown on me. It reminds me of William Carlos Williams' poem, "The red wheelbarrow". There's a kind of simple near-perfection of form to it, with only a few colors and lots of relaxing blue sky and white sand. Only a couple of contrails spoil the illusion a bit, but they're far enough away to also be gentle. Daniel, Milseburg and Basotxerri, do you still think this photo is oversaturated? I think it is good now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Exactly what I think too. Totally "clean" views are lifeless. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, Ikan, the saturation is OK now, however I have a problem with people in landscape images. If they could be cloned out, I would vote in favor. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Everything you can clone out. But as I argued I did not see the point why this few persons should disturb the image impression so much. In fact I cloned out some persons that was in the mid range of the image. But the far away few persons gives the image life without disturbing the relaxing and calmfull charakter. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 15:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

*  Oppose the colours are oversaturated --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   Info See comment on the opposite vote above. --Cart (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I reduced even the nativ colours of the image, so this image is in fact not oversaturated. Maybe you disslike strong and fresh colours? --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at his recent votes, this user is disruptive. Charles (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It was not used a polarizing filter. And in fact the image was de-coloured. You seem not to know different light conditions and clear and fresh coloursituations which you have e.g. on high seas on shinny weather. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • That's probably why I don't understand 1/500 on shinny weather. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hand-held and and windy beach would justify 1/500. Charles (talk) 08:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • What's the problem with the aperture of 1/500? And one again S. DÉNIEL: please decide whether you're vote pro or contra and if you want to vote pro please sign your voting. Thank you! --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:45, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support nice colors --Ralf Roleček   15:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Besides nice or nt nice colours, there is no subject here. Technically the camera created a good file but I dont see anything wow here.Paolobon140 (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
The chosen alternative is: File:Leuchtturm Helgoland Düne.jpg

File:Moscow Kazansky railway terminal asv2018-08 img7.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2018 at 14:34:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
  •   Info Windows of the former dining hall (today used as business-class lounge) in Kazansky railway station in Moscow ----- All by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 14:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Can we do something about the blurred areas near the corners? I do realize it's a pretty tight crop to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
    Come on, it's ultra wide-angle lens, there is not that much blur, less than usually. Comparable photos haven't quite crisp corners either. --A.Savin 22:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop at the bottom is too tight. The mirrors are cut. Strange black element in the foreground, on the left side. The reflections in the mirrors make the picture too busy. And I don't really like this angle -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Laitche (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Mrs Emmeline Pankhurst, Leader of the Women's Suffragette movement, is arrested outside Buckingham Palace while trying to present a petition to King George V in May 1914. Q81486.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2018 at 19:03:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1910-1920
  •   Info The famous arrest of suffragette movement leader Emmeline Pankhurst in May 1914, during an attempt to deliver a petition to the king. Unknown photographer - uploaded by Ducksoup - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, historically important. Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moahim (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good news photograph, obvious historical importance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question How is the definition of the image transformed? 590 × 800 => 3.926 × 5.317. For FP rules ?
  • Hi, S. DÉNIEL; I don't rightly know how the current version was achieved, but resolution is secondary for such an historic photo (compare: the historical category). If someone were to create an even better, restored version, that would be a great service to the community, but I fear I am unable to. Btw. please remember to sign your comments.--Peulle (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral the rule is the same for all --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question - Which rule are you referring to? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Resolution – Images of lower resolution than 2 million pixels --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and this is the most ridiculous one I've seen so far. It's illegitimate to oppose a historic photo because the original scan size was lower than 2MP. Judge the photo as it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @S. DÉNIEL: I'll address your concern properly, since there seems to be a misunderstanding of the rules. Point #1: an image must be judged in its current version. As you can see on the image page, the original version of this image was only 590×800, but higher resolution images have since been found in digital archives and uploaded by other users, thus replacing the original upload. Therefore, the image file is bigger than the minimum requirement. Point #2: there are exceptions to the rule which apply here. Allow me to explain: Yes, the 2 megapixel rule is normally in effect and applies to all pictures. There are, however, exceptions, and I encourage you to read about those in the Guidelines. As for the exception for this particular image, the relevant passage is: "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." Given that this image records an important moment in history and is famous in its own right, users might have voted for it even if no size bigger than 2MP existed. As it does, however (see point #1), the point is moot. In summary, and I'm sorry to say this as I think each user should be allowed to vote their minds on FP images, but your vote is wrong since it was made on faulty premises.--Peulle (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all these explanations. I thought the picture was the same and artificially enlarged. I should have said it in my comment, sorry. After watching with more attention I see that it is not the same version. the noise is the same but there are other small details. the link of the source deceived me. thanks again --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I wanted to support, but two cropped people in the foreground of a photo are many for FP. JukoFF (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure, that's fair enough. You mean one person, though, right? The second one is in the background, not foreground ...--Peulle (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very strong moment. People's emotions are captured! --Tozina (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical#1910-1920

File:Louvre Palace North Gate Top.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 00:31:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • It's better. I haven't decided whether it's good enough for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Rudbeckia fulgida 'Goldsturm' (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 05:00:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Rudbeckia fulgida #Family Asteraceae -->
  •   Info Rudbeckia fulgida is a valuable perennial garden plant. Blooms in aug./sept. with cheerful warm yellow flowers with a dark heart. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While I like many of your flower images, this one looks to flat to me. Better contrast and saturation might improve it but I think the shape of the flower itself results too insipid to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm on my other PC now, the colour and contrast look better here... However, I still think that there is still something missing for an FP. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Question: What do you think is wrong? The warm yellow color from the heart of the flower, I think, corresponds to reality. The background is also pretty blurred.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Famberhorst, I don't say that there is really something wrong with this image, it's simply that I don't see it as one of the finest flower pictures at Commons. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your explanation.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I do also wish for brighter light for this one, but it's good enough as is. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for the comment. Flower slightly brighter and made warmer.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Give an oppose reason. You can't oppose without giving a reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Looking at his recent votes, this user is disruptive. Charles (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • your simultaneous attack are nasty - i think like Basotxerri it's flat --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Touzrimounir: When you 'oppose' a photo, you have to give a reason for it. That is the rule. --Cart (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It is an excellent picture, bight and well composed. And most of all, it describes the flower perfectly.Paolobon140 (talk) 11:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

File:2018 - Magstræde street in evening.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 06:52:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Denmark
  •   Info created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Moahim -- Moahim (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Moahim (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The traffic sign at the right should be cropped out or eliminated.--Ermell (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC) - Done. --Moahim (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like this photo and have nothing negative to say about it. It's very well-shot, pleasant, well-composed and I like the atmosphere. However, I don't think every well-shot blue hour street photo that's pleasant and a perfectly good but not necessarily amazing composition is an FP, and this one doesn't wow me, even though I respect it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- And also the purpose of FP is to collect best (at this moment) images of different places and I haven't found better on wiki. Thank You. --Moahim (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • That is not the purpose of FP, but of VI. See guidelines. Charles (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Whether it's successful at FPC or not, that's an excellent reason to nominate it as best in its scope at VIC. I hope you don't mind that I moved your reply down. It's very hard to see replies when they're on the same line as the comments they reply to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it.--Ermell (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --B2Belgium (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the way it looks clean and historic at the same time, with the balance of warm and cool colors, like something you'd see in a good travel guidebook (or at least one with a good photo editor). Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good light and composition. -- Colin (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 17:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Touzrimounir (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture#Denmark

File:Lariño - Faro de Punta Insua -BT- 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 14:36:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Oppose not very interesting for me....why b/w?--Σπάρτακος (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Only one vote per user. See Category:Sockpuppets of Livioandronico2013. --Cart (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose per others, and I am not a fan of b/w. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 17:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It does not look like a black and white photo: there is no black and there is no white, but greys only. You might try to print it and see what i mean... Foregrund looks messy and distracting Paolobon140 (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Nürnberg St. Lorenz Keyper-Epitaph 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2018 at 07:17:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
  •   Info The lamentation over the dead Christ by Michael Wolgemut, 1484. Epitaph for Georg Keyper at St. Lorenz church Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany. Photographed, uploaded and nominated by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support There are some areas where there's a bit more reflected light than I think a featured-quality digitization of a painting should have. But this seems to be the only one of this particular painting, and it's pretty good otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support and a comment: That really reads as an "oppose" rationale. "It's the only one of this painting" is a VIC rationale, not to me an FPC rationale. That said, I think we can have different standards for frescoes in churches than for paintings hung in museums, and I do think this looks quite good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, so I was conflicted, but to me that by itself is not enough to justify a "neutral" !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media#Religion

File:Schloss Schönbühel 20180919.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2018 at 06:27:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Austria
  •   Info Schönbühel Castle (Schloss Schönbühel) in Schönbühel-Aggsbach (Lower Austria) at sunset. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good quality.--Ermell (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely indeed. I suggest cropping the bottom a bit, to improve the balance.--Peulle (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice quality and composition. --Moahim (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I know this was taken at sunset, but the contrast still looks too extreme to me, like what you get when you pick "Medium Contrast" on the curves panel. This might be fixable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 17:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose poor framing, dark --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nothing wrong with the framing. Oppose votes should be used with more understanding of photography. Charles (talk) 10:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support good framing, well balanced lighting --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Touzrimounir (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment IMHO, the colors and lighting are a bit weird but I won't go disrupt the flow of support lol. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 06:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Austria

File:Canal du Midi, Cers.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2018 at 04:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#France
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Christian Ferrer - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love the soft light and the peaceful beauty of the scene. Great photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It has those qualities, but it also has a lot going on with the trees, and the weird look of the sky, perhaps due to overprocessing (note the slight halo near the tree line in the background). Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but nothing really special + per above. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination since the photographer himself doesn't think it's special. I didn't notice a halo, but if it's there, fix it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Разнообразие семян.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2018 at 10:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info Microimages of seeds of various plants.
  • The first row: Poppy, Red pepper, Strawberry, Apple tree, Blackberry, Rice, Carum.
  • Second row: Mustard, Eggplant, Physalis, grapes, raspberries, red rice, Patchouli.
  • The third row: Figs, Lycium barbarum, Beets, Blueberries, Golden Kiwifruit, Rosehip, Basil.
  • The fourth row: Pink pepper, Tomato, Radish, Carrot, Matthiola, Dill, Coriander
  • Fifth row: Black pepper, White cabbage, Napa cabbage, Seabuckthorn, Parsley, Dandelion, Capsella bursa-pastoris.
  • The sixth row: Cauliflower, Radish, Kiwifruit, Grenadilla, Passion fruit, Melissa, Tagetes erecta. / Сreated by Alexander Klepnev - uploaded by Alexander Klepnev - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I was about to support this one since it looks very nice ... Then I noticed that the bottom right seed is cut off ... Pity. --Peulle (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment And please add a description above. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose per Peulle -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The description is a mixture of common English and scientific names. Either you use in all cases commons names or, what would be much better for international understanding, only the scientific names. --Llez (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination JukoFF (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Roughtail rock agama (Stellagama stellio brachydactyla).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2018 at 15:18:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • thanks, done. Charles (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe not optimal light but stunning teeth. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Did it loose some of its tail? --Yann (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, when it was very young I imagine. Charles (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Here is what it said to you: "I'll show my best smile, and you'll take a FP!" --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah - I thought that might it it, but couldn't be sure... FP إليك ما قالته لك: سأعرض أفضل ابتسامي ، وستحصل على (iilayk ma qalath lk: sa'aerid 'afdal aibtisamiun , wasatahsul ealaa FP) Charles (talk) 09:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Reptiles

File:Mac Miller (8) – splash! Festival 20 (2017).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2018 at 00:51:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created anf uploaded by Nicolas Völcker - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Miss you… -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The stuff on the left is distracting. I don't promise to support if you crop that out, because the photo isn't really doing much for me, but I definitely think you should. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The micro is distracting. Composition overall not striking. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, doesn't have any wow. Daniel Case (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others and my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I miss him too and like that pic, but its IMO not good enough for a featured picture. --SDKmac (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Wooden footbridge in Luang Prabang with a worker busy at its consolidation.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2018 at 01:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Laos
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Not perfect, but close enough. I can't help but think of The Bridge on the River Kwai when I see these photos. ;) --Cart (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support In most cases I don't like people on landscape images but here it's the person that makes it special. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, it's definitely a QI but there's just too much going on in this image for me to be wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel. Lighting also not the best, most photos without the sky in it would be better on a cloudy day and this is no exception. -- King of ♠ 14:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  Question - Isn't this a cloudy day? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
  • That's a beautiful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places#Laos

File:Larus argentatus argenteus01.jpg (delist), keptEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2018 at 16:27:26
 

  •   Info Not up to today's standards (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Charles (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's featured on polish wikipedia and not in commons. We do not have the jurisdiction to define what is and what is not featured there :) --Photographer 16:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, didn't spot that. Charles (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is a case of 'mistaken identity'. --Cart (talk) 16:57, 7 October 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.

  I withdraw my nomination

  • Closing as nom since it wasn't really a delist. --Cart (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Brand sign on the closed Lysekils canned seafood factory 4.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2018 at 09:50:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Many towns and cities have signs that have become a kind of landmark, this is Lysekil's version of it. It is the logo of the now closed seafood factory. This industry defined Lysekil for about three centuries but it's now all gone. The sign is among the first things you see when driving into town, it can be seen to the right here. -- Cart (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very sharp photo, but no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very sharp but I don't like the feeling of listing to the left. Maybe it's meant to be poetic, since it's the logo of a closed factory, but I'd rather see it horizontal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I did photos from several (possible) angles and this one was the one that turned out best. The angle and the perspective makes the composition more dynamic than the other. You can see them here. The central strut of the sign is vertical and the rest of the photo is playing with the lines. The near horisontal shots looked just boring and a perfectly horisontal shot is not possible unless by drone.. --Cart (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Btw, since we are on the subject of sharpness here, that is all thanks to two other photographers here. :) Basotxerri taught me how to understand f-numbers for small-sensor cameras and Kabelleger adviced me about Adobe's smart sharpness feature. Many thanks to both of you! You have saved a lot of my photos. :) --Cart (talk) 20:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You make me feel proud, thank you   --Basotxerri (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Okey dokey then. Thanks anyway. --Cart (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Basilica Santa Maria della Salute Dorsoduro Venezia lato ovest.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2018 at 22:26:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 06:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Château Frontenac city at night.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2018 at 22:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose I have thinked about it and looked several times, but the horizontal line is strongly not horizontal and Château Frontenac is leaning to the left. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I expect there to be objections to the people and the crane, but in a big panorama of a city, those elements are to be expected. I like the sweep of the view, the light (especially on the Frontenac) and colors. I'm not disturbed by the perspective. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The people are distracting and it isn't really night (no interesting lights) so it just appears dark. Charles (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Having had a second look, the colours/perpsective seems weird to me. Can't be more specific. Charles (talk) 20:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Much better, so I go from oppose to neutral. Charles (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, this doesn't work for me. The detail, view and perspective are ok but the uniform dark colors make it look like an old 50s postcard. --Cart (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok now. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The colors make it special. --Yann (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Mild support While the title is a little misleading (this is Quebec at dusk), like Ikan I like the way this panorama captures the city's best-known landmark and its general physical setting, at the same time as it gives us an impression of this as a busy place, with people in the streets and a docked cruise ship. Perhaps, since I've been to Quebec (albeit a long time ago), I appreciate it more. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support as always Wilf… 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Wladyslaw Thanks, I applied a verticals and horizontals perspective fix (You can see the Guides opening it with Photoshop), please, take a look and let me know if it is ok for you. BTW, Charles and Cart absolutely true, the dark color was due to an excessive use of clarity filter by mistake, please, take a look too. Also I added more space to the composition with a more generous cut and finally, I removed any ridiculous color filter to let it with naturals colors. Thanks nice reviews --Photographer 01:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)