Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2021

File:Pozov (Postupice) board trailer.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2021 at 16:49:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture
Info All by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have taken the liberty to change the gallery link. The page Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Czech Republic is a somewhat obscure, outdated, orphan gallery page which mixes FPs from various categories (not only “natural” places, as the name suggests); it is not linked to the other gallery pages, does not use the header or footer nor the categories which all FP gallery pages should use. Therefore the normal and appropriate place for landscape photos from the Czech Republic would be the section Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Czech Republic. But this photo shows IMHO a mostly agricultural landscape, therefore it seems even more appropriate to use the Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture gallery page instead; if the image gets promoted, I will create a “Czech Republic” section on that page and place the image there. --Aristeas (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC) – Deleted the first part of my comment because it is outdated (I have converted the orphan gallery page Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Czech Republic into a working one, to avoid further confusion about it). --Aristeas (talk) 07:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely Seven Pandas (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Unfortunately, f/5 is not the optimal aperture to use. The corners are unsharp, even at 4 MP. (Also, a bit too bright but that's a fixable problem.) It's a shame because I do like the colors and composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely nice and a fine idea, but the flat light is a bit boring, and the composition does not appeal to me (especially the half-hidden background forest). Plus the sharpness issues – everything in focus except for the dominating foreground tree. I’d rather see the background out of focus. --Kreuz schnabel 17:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Home, sweet home.... -- Karelj (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think trailer should get more side shot also harsh color. This would work at early morning shot or sunset... some flash+sun in front. --Mile (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kreuz. Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kreuz, sorry. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonnenuhr P1290387.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2021 at 14:10:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Other
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link simplified ;–). These links are rather stupid, they can only link to an existing subheading on an existing gallery page. --Aristeas (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Slightly tilted counterclockwise? I haven't seen it in real life, so that's a question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info I checked the whole thing again and found that the entire sundial in the original got a little out of hand. This can happen with hand-painted objects and can no longer be regulated. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, it's a rather simple image, but it's a nice subject with a good inscription. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but at 5.3 MP there really needs to be huge "wow" factor to move me, and it's just not there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Historical stylization- Slavic of the 13th century, Karoling Club Ruza.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2021 at 23:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info created byDmitry Nikolaev - uploaded by Niklitov - nominated by Niklitov -- Niklitov (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niklitov (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that sharp and unfortunate crop on the right; might nevertheless be a Valued Image if nominated in the right scope. Also COM:OVERCAT and uses one red-linked category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ikan Kekek: -OVERCAT and no red-linked! — Niklitov (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: ~~I have uploaded a new version of the file! Not „crop on the right“ now!~~ — Niklitov (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's different to Photoshop a file than to actually have a version with the rest of the stick you could merge into this or something. I'm with Charles on not approving of this particular kind of fakery. Besides, it's still quite a tight crop, and the other issues mentioned in this thread remain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Dear Ikan Kekek! Forgive me for my English, but I didn't understand what exactly do you disapprove of in this photo? Cropping corrected based on RAF file. — Niklitov (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look up the word "fakery". As for the rest, the difficulty of making featured pictures is really the point. It's not easy to satisfy voters that a photo is one of the very best on the site. Why should it be easy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I did not expect to hear this from you... I didn't get any clearer. This is a very strong your word that cannot be used so freely here. A strong general accusation. ~~Emotions?~~ We need supporting facts from your side. This is where the styling is (because of the horses of the stables, small parts), but from the professionals (Mainstream and Progressive). Stylization = not a pure historical reconstruction from a scientific point of view (it is also rare in museums). — Niklitov (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was using the word "fakery" in regard to the now-reverted Photoshopping of the stick, but the lack of historical accuracy of the scene does limit its educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Maybe you mean the distortion of the file in Photoshop? If so, then I reverted to a previous version of the file. — Niklitov (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support a few technical shortcomings, sure, but I don't find the sharpness that big of an issue and appreciate the effort at (a) recreating the historic dress, (b) information about where the styles come from, (c) nice colors (if a little oversaturated), and (d) nice light in a nice setting. Seems to be more of a historically interested endeavor than similar kinds of shots IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Dear Rhododendrites, colors are “a little oversaturated”, because the historical costumes are new. — Niklitov (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The photographer failed to get all six people looking at the camera. Cropped at right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp, thank you for your attention! ~~Now not „cropped at right“!~~ — Niklitov (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not OK, in my view to edit like this for FP. At least you haven't changed the eyes! It now needs the 'modified from the original' template. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi, Charlesjsharp! Before assigning the FP status, we can modify the file, if there is such a possibility and we can fix something. This is standard practice, isn't it? Example 1, example 2. Please tell me which template are you talking about? — Niklitov (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Retouched picture}}

This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version.

Done Thank you, Charlesjsharp! — Niklitov (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Rhododendrites. The four people in the middle are the main subject, not the guys on the horses or the forest behind them, and they're all sharp and looking at the camera. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The six people are the subject, not just the four. And authenticity? Horse breastplates were not invented until the 15th/16th century. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit ignorance on the subject. They seemed to be going for something more than casual dress-up, but perhaps not. (Also, I'm curious about that photoshop edit -- where did that bit come from? It doesn't look like it came from this photo.) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is not 100% authentic. It is very, very difficult to achieve 100% authenticity, even in the cinema there is no such thing! Yes, horses are not 13th century. Therefore, photography is called stylization, and not a scientific historical reconstruction. I understand that you want with Ikan Kekek the scientific reconstruction, right? :) There are photographs, each character separately. And it is not necessary for a person to look at the camera at the same time. Isn't it? — Niklitov (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really understand. If I thought this were a great photo, I would support it, regardless of anything else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overall noisy and a bit over-contrasty, tight crop, faces a bit too bright (close to overexposure), and I don’t like the birch tree to grow out of the lady’s head. --Kreuz schnabel 11:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems to me alone that this is too much? ~~The cropping of the photo is good, IMHO.~~ Costumes based on archaeological finds from kurgans. In all photographs, where the background is a dense forest, trees grow out of the head, no matter how you turn the camera. Maybe a little overexposure, but this is probably the shooting style. Is this a disadvantage? — Niklitov (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charlesjsharp --Andrei (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which version are we voting for by now – the original version, the redone original version, or "version 2" showing an entirely different shot? Please avoid such confusion. Every vote should refer to the same version of the same image. If you decide to prefer a different one, please withdraw your first nomination and nominate the second separately to make it clear what we are talking about. --Kreuz schnabel 11:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Delist and replace . Of course, I withdraw the nomination. It took me a while to realize that there was a distortion of the first version in Photoshop. Please forgive me, Ikan Kekek and other Wikimedia Commons project participants! — Niklitov (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{Delistandreplace}} is for existing FPs to be replaced by better versions. Use {{Withdraw}} to withdraw. --Kreuz schnabel 08:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Thanks, Kreuz! — Niklitov (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Little egret fishing edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2021 at 10:12:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

the hunt
the attack (which failed)

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus : Egretta
Info A similar FP of this species - this one and others of similar species: one; two, three. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Charles, this has the same problem that you noticed on the "Skyscrapers in La Défense" nomination: not the same PoV (the lighting of the water is quite different too, despite the 25s difference). As separate nominations, the first could be compared with File:Little egret at Tennōji Park in Osaka, March 2016.jpg. It suffers from the relatively high PoV rather than being down at bird level, and the feathers are messy vs spectacular in the fine specimen of the other photo. The second can be compared with File:Little egret at Sundarbans East Wildlife Sanctuary.jpg, which unfortunately is under 4MP but is a far far better image. In that image, the PoV is down at bird level, the background nicely blurred, and the water droplets catch the eye. This photo here lacks those attributes, along with the untidy plumage issues. -- Colin (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, and we now have a very high standard for bird pics, which neither of these quite makes. Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Чернильница из Рузского краеведческого музея.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2021 at 00:24:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Containers
Info created by Alexander Artyomenkov - uploaded by Niklitov - nominated by Niklitov -- Niklitov (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niklitov (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea and subject but the quality is altogether too low IMHO. Not a single edge of the inkpot is really sharp, and many glare points are overexposed. Why 800 ISO? Impossible to use a tripod in this place? I think it needs focus stacking to take an FP of this one. Btw, try a symmetric sqare crop here, the rectangle somehow doesn’t work too well, too much of empty space on the sides. --Kreuz schnabel 17:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Daniel Case and Kreuzschnabel: I will ask the photographer for answers to your questions. Do you like the second version of the photo better? — Niklitov (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Commons:Photography critiques to discuss images or get opinions on them. Here on FPC, we just vote "yes, this is one of our very best" or "sorry, it’s not among them". --Kreuz schnabel 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Oh, thank you! Didn't know about such the page! — Niklitov (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Praia do Castelo do Queijo (2).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2021 at 18:00:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
Info created & uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit too top-heavy, with the big rock at the top left too close to the edge. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a random bit of beech taken with a long exposure. I'm not seeing what is featurable here. -- Colin (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Doesn't stand out from other beach photos, and there's a lot of unsharpness. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Praia do Castelo do Queijo (15).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2021 at 17:58:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
Info created & uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know it's a long exposure, but the rocks look unnatural in that light, kind of like cuts of meat. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Daniel that the colour looks odd. Long exposure beach scenes are a bit clichéd. There's no sky and the water isn't quite active enough to demonstrate the effect well. -- Colin (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above --Muhammad (talk) 11:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norfolk Southern -9865 in Wauseon OH.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2021 at 02:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by Lectrician2 - uploaded by Lectrician2 - nominated by Lectrician2 -- Lectrician2 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lectrician2 (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing featurable sorry. The correct gallery actually would be Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles; just take a look at the pictures there. --A.Savin 03:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Side in the shadow. The details are not visible. Poor lighting -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, poor quality and considerable noise at just 9 megapixels, unfortunate lighting, and verticals leaning out. Bottom crop a bit too tight for me. The shot as such is not that extraordinary to compensate for the shortcomings. --Kreuz schnabel 08:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Also tilting in different ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose A great view of the train, but as noted by other opposers too much shadow. And the background shows the limitations of drone photos. A good picture was possible with this idea, but this isn't it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Lectrician2 (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ruza's baked-smoked duck.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2021 at 21:37:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Food
Info All by -- Niklitov (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition. The various dishes and bowls on the side of the duck are distracting, and the lighting does not make the food appealing to look at. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main subject of the photo (the duck) is out of focus around it's leg areas. I also agree with everything else king of hearts stated.--Lectrician2 (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I'd love to promote more photos of dishes, but this isn't a very inspiring picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ок, thanks! — Niklitov (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piña de mar (Phallusia mammillata), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 72.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2021 at 20:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class : Ascidiacea
Info Sea squirt (Phallusia mammillata) of aproximate length of 15 centimetres (5.9 in), Arrábida National Park, Portugal. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link added ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is beautiful, so FP for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Maybe there is again some backscatter, but it doesn’t bother me here because the subject is not hidden nor spoiled. --Aristeas (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Downsized. 6,8 MPx photo from 50 MPx camera. That is merely 8% of sensor. Why ? --Mile (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here I actually don't mind the backscatter. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class : Ascidiacea

File:Red-browed Finch - Penrith.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2021 at 13:36:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Estrildidae_(Estrildid_Finch)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support You could nominate current FP for deletion. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Charles, I think you mean delisting, but that doesn't seem necessary to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The framing is a bit odd to me; I see no reason for a square frame when there is so much empty space at the top and the tail is so close to the left edge. A stubby landscape ratio would be much better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dinkum (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ermell (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 12:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Estrildidae_(Estrildid_Finch)

File:Red-necked phalarope at JBWR (41244).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2021 at 21:41:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Scolopacidae_(Typical_Waders)
Info Composition isn't as special as the other two I recently nominated, but this was a lucky find. Red-necked phalaropes breed in the arctic and spend the rest of the year on the ocean, typically far from humans. Unlike shorebirds which stay by the shore, this bird spends time out at sea, swimming in circles to bring food upwards. This one made a brief stop in New York during migration, and came near enough to a shoreline to get a sharp picture. I took probably 250 shots of this bird and its companion, and this is one of the only ones with good light (yes, a little bit of overexposure on the front). You can see it starting to lose its breeding plumage color. Uncommonly for birds, females are more brightly colored than males, and someone told me this one is likely a female based on the remaining color at this stage. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support FYI we have no FPs of this genus, and this bird is the only current QI. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For rarity/difficulty of shot. Suggest adding to Wikipedia infobox. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~until tilt corrected.~~Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest adding to Wikipedia infobox - I hesitate because it's currently set up for breeding/nonbreeding plumage, and this is more in transition. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some rotation ? --Mile (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I did check, even rotated for 2.5° bird will still go "uphill". --Mile (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it is tilted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's riding up a gentle wave here. That context is more obvious before I cropped it. I don't mind it, but don't feel strongly, so if people think it's distracting enough, I can see about rotation. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check reflection. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I actually like that slight greenish tint of the water. Is it from the water itself or the light/reflections? Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a brackish pond right by Jamaica Bay (which makes it popular for shorebirds when the rest of the bay is at high tide). The water does often seem to have a greenish tint, which is visible in many of my recent uploads from there. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded with rotation. @PetarM and Charlesjsharp: (presuming it's minor enough I don't need to ping everyone else). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good stuff pic is not up to reflection. I saw by now more shots where people are so dependent to that reflection more than to object itself, which often result to strange crop. --Mile (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Scolopacidae_(Typical_Waders)

File:Rambla de Huarea 1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2021 at 12:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Spain
Info Aerial view of the Rambla de Huarea delta. Created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna. —kallerna (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little hazy for an FP, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Oppose Not that special for me altogether as composition. Lower keys could be a bit darker to gain some contrast. How about something like this? --Kreuz schnabel 08:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I much prefer your version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Me too ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

image:Fly Head Macro.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2021 at 08:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera
Info created by Fedaro - uploaded by Fedaro - nominated by fedaro -- fedaro (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor DoF and stacking quality consiodering the number of photos taken. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles, and cluttered composition and tight crop. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Basic category added to the image, basic gallery link added, link in nomination text fixed ;–). If somebody could determinate the species, genus or family of that fly we could make that photo much more useful by adding the specific categories. --Aristeas (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. Poor pp.--Ermell (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord, Torpedowagen -- 2016 -- 1214.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2021 at 16:56:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 16:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 16:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arkelin (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, the photo turns the leaf springs into an semi-abstract artwork. --Aristeas (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I cannot find here anything for FP nomination. Nothing encyclopedic valuable, aesthetic value - horrible... -- Karelj (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect our rules, especially the section Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#Above_all,_be_polite:Above all, be polite. The use of the word "horrible" isn't objective from my point of view and close to personal attack. And for the encyclopedic value please have a look to en:Leaf spring. --XRay 💬 05:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gallery changed to Objects#Machines.--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Machines

File:The Theotokos Glykofilousa (16th century; Богородица Умиљења).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2021 at 04:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info Close-up of icon (painting) The Theotokos Glykofilousa (16th century) by unknown author. My photo -- Mile (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice detail, pretty sharp at 60%, but do you have a picture of the whole painting? If you do, please link it. I personally feel that details are of limited use, most of the time, and that it's almost always better to look at a reproduction of the whole artwork, but that could easily be a bias as a result of having a painter for a father. He felt that way because the composition is perceived by looking at the entire work, and his opinion was that detailed views aren't intended by the artist. Of course in this case, you are the artist, but I still think it would be best for you to also provide a link to a photo of the whole work, so that we can see the context. Others may well disagree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek Done Luckily i had complete painting from smarthphone. But beauty is in the details. --Mile (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I do prefer the whole painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly interesting detail for me. Ikan’s comment is very important and reasonable, but I have to confess that I feel the other way around. I have grown up between many books about art, but most of them offered only photos of complete artworks and no details; and in museums it is not always allowed to get close enough to study and appreciate the fine details of paintings and sculptures. So it felt like a revelation to me when, in the late 1990s, I discovered some newer art books that also showed detail shots of paintings, so I could finally see facial expressions more closely and study brushstrokes; and I was even more thrilled when more and more high-resolution photos of paintings appeared on the internet. I think both are important: photographs that show the entirety of a work of art, so you can grasp the composition; and detail shots that allow you to study important parts, such as faces, and to judge the care of the execution of the artwork. --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't disagree that details can be a useful tool, but much like excerpting a piece of music for the purposes of focusing on a section to analyze it, the excerpt/detail is not usually a great composition by itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, true. Many museums put a protection line or the rope too far and you cant see details. Often I see more from the photo than observing beside the painting. Ikan Kekek Mel Gibson would not agree. He took details for Icon Productions, i made some comparison. Shouldn't be the logo on en.Wiki on PD ?! Now is Non-free media. --Mile (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've noticed that I've stated what my taste is but haven't opposed the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very noisy, areas in the corner unsharp due to low DoF, just an old painting of which you find hunderts in many museums. Mile, what is so special about it, to be FP !? Poco a poco (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estrella roja del Mediterráneo (Echinaster sepositus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 79.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2021 at 06:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Asteroidea
Info Mediterranean red sea star (Echinaster sepositus), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question About how big is this creature? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: if you imagine it's a circle, the radius from the center would be about 10 centimetres (3.9 in). And yes, I'll try to document the dimensions better in the future, specially for small underwater creatures which size is not necessarily well known, so that the effort to have a good shot can be evaluated with more knowledge. Poco a poco (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. I support, especially given the size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp enough for under water --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 16:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 17:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Color space Uncalibrated. Downsized again ?! --Mile (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Asteroidea

File:Raya mosaico (Raja undulata), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 92-93 PAN.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2021 at 21:07:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Class_:_Chondrichthyes_(Cartilaginous_Fishes)
Info Undulate ray (Raja undulata) of approx 100 centimetres (3.3 ft) length and 10 kilograms (22 lb) weight, Arrábida National Park, Portugal. This species is endangered and is usually found on sandy, muddy or detrital bottoms, mostly at depths of 50–200 m (160-660 ft). All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question It can go deep, but is it not usually found in shallower water, as here? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed told that I was lucky...it's rare to see. The ray was ca. 20 m deep. Poco a poco (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noise. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20 m depth, no possibility to use lighting due to the big size (or a lighting that would cost a kidney), rare and moving target -> high ISO and some noise. Downsampling would have probably help for FPC. Poco a poco (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose partly oof. --Ivar (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it makes sense to put this candidate into perspective: look into the poor quality of aquarium pictures of this species we have on Commons. We have (apart from my series, from which this is IMHO the best candidate) no living QIs/FPs for the species, neither for the genus, nor family nor for the whole order(!), now wonder why. Poco a poco (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Colours are quite subdued at 20m without artifical light. Tiny processing error where indicated. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use special filters for my underwater shot. The image doen't definitely look the way it came out of the raw in terms of WB Poco a poco (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It may be a useful photo and it may be that we have few/no other photos of this species. That doesn't make it a great image. There are technical issues (noise, focus, lack of detail, subdued colours). The composition is purely functional as is the lighting. There's nothing dynamic. At FPC, "wow" is a requirement and can overcome technical issues. Without "wow" the result is like explaining to us that a joke nobody laughed at is really very clever and funny. The argument that we have no other good photos of this species/order isn't relevant to whether this image is among the finest on Commons: nearly all species on earth have no great images on Commons. I think this is a QI/VI and nothing more. -- Colin (talk) 10:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, quality just not sufficient for a feature though the image is without doubt very rare and useful, and as good as possible. COM:VI is the best place to get this promoted. --Kreuz schnabel 15:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wallersberg Wacholderhänge-20210530-RM-153338.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2021 at 20:11:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info Aerial view of Wallersberg in Franconian Switzerland. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good photo, but i would crop the sky. --Mile (talk) 10:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Gets unsharp and a little distorted in the upper left. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info The picture has reached second place at WLE Germany, so I don't think I should change it any more. I always try to get the best out of the drone's 1 inch sensor but that's all I could do here. Thanks for the reviews.--Ermell (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the contrast between the geometric order of the fields in the foreground and the complex natural landscape of the valley in the background. --Aristeas (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A beautiful image for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good anyway. --Mile (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria

Cleora cinctaria catepillar, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2021 at 15:49:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Side view
Top view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Geometridae_(Geometer_Moths)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:13, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Geometridae_(Geometer_Moths)

File:Gletsjerpad naar de Morteratschgletsjer 12-09-2019. (d.j.b) 37.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2021 at 16:32:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons_(Graubünden)
Info View of the impressive Morteratsch glacier in black and white.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great use of B&W here, really accentuates the contrast in the sky. Maybe adjusting the processing to make the vegetation at the bottom a different shade from the surrounding dirt would make it even better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be my eyesight but when I first looked at this I couldn't see what it was. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose OK, so it's not my eyesight. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. Gallery link refined by adding the section. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 07:18, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like these kind of black-and-white photographs. It's a touch of Ansel Adams. --XRay 💬 07:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When I First Looked at this, I couldn't even make out what it is. In Ansel Adams photographs, you can immediately make out what it is, and understand the photo. This is just too bright. --Lectrician2 (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but having black & white and mountains does not equal "Ansel Adams", who many consider the greatest landscape photographer (example photos). This is not a great photo. The mountains? Meh, they look like many snow capped pointy mountains. There isn't a dominant peak to catch my eye. I'm having a hard job distinguishing the mountains from the clouds, because the lack of blue sky colour means I can't tell what is sky and what is rock or shadowed snow. The foreground? Come on. A great landscape photo has a great foreground. This has lots and lots of scree and some shrubs. The shrubs, unlike the mighty conifers Adams captured, are reduced to being random splodges in b&w. There's a path on the very bottom right, but this isn't made into a feature. There's just too much of the frame filled with boring material, and the bit in the middle isn't great either. If you zoom into the mountains, there was certainly scope to capture something interesting with textures of snow and rock, but that's not this photo. One doesn't make a classic image just by converting to b&w and darkening blue. -- Colin (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too not enough contrast. I agree with Colin.Je-str (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On hold I’m not sure yet what to make of this one. I have to agree with each one of the issues Colin mentioned, and the clouds near the top frame even have serious quality issues, yet the entire image is fascinating in a way – maybe just because the sky melts into the horizon. Then, it’s too unclear, too crowded, too many details – that’s what moves it a bit off Adams’ masterpieces which are crisp clear about their main point. I’ll wait for a few more days if it dawns upon me. Btw, did you notice the second photographer in the lower right corner? --Kreuz schnabel 07:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I only discovered that other photographer when editing the photo when we were already home. It's my wife Agnes M.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I never realized that she was your wife! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. Sometimes you can save a busy scene by converting to black and white, but that didn't work here at all. --El Grafo (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Fröbelstraße, Mohn am Feldrand -- 2021 -- 9174.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2021 at 08:36:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Papaveraceae
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 08:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The flower is nice, but the foreground stems/background is distracting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition in a field of poppies is hard, and I don't think this is exceptional. -- Colin (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin,sorry --Co mmon ists 18:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Colin. -- Karelj (talk) 21:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Charlesjsharp --IamMM (talk) 06:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The rest of the plants are not disturbing to me. Fits well into the whole. --Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Papaveraceae

Skyscrapers in La Défense, 20 August 2021, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2021 at 06:09:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info created by Pierre Blaché (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very sorry, but someone has to ask this question: Are these (very exciting!) photos allowed on Commons? AFAIK, there is a big problem with French law: there is no real Freedom of Panorama in France, so commercial use of photographs of buildings is allowed only when the architect has died more than 70 years ago, or maybe de minimis when the building is not the main subject. On Commons, we can never exclude commerical use of photos, so we must assume that this law applies to all photos. Here the skyscrapers are clearly the main subject, so we have to ask: are the architects of all these buildings dead for more than 70 years? Yes, that is a stupid condition, but please do not blame me, contact French politicians and urge them to change, finally, that embarrassing law. I am very sorry, --Aristeas (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PS: Or, if French law has changed recently or if there is some exception which applies here, please correct me, I would be very happy to be wrong in this case ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that if France changed its law towards commercial FoP, we would immediately have got aware of this. --A.Savin 15:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that de minimis applies to an image like this ... there are several different copyrights involved and none of them can be said to be the subject of the picture. That's how we have been able to host plenty of nighttime Paris cityscapes showing the Eiffel Tower and its lighting scheme. Daniel Case (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the building at the right is WAY too prominently depicted. --A.Savin 12:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My approach to photos that are not obviously violations of FoP is always: discuss only the photographic merits of the image at FPC. Then if it shows up at DR, we can discuss its copyright status. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, I will not mention that problem anymore. --Aristeas (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Daniel’s argument: I would normally share this view and defend it vehemently against deletion advocates. But these two photos, as far as I understand the situation, show only recent buildings, which are therefore all (or almost all) subject to copyright under French law. Even if de minimis may now apply to each individual building, I still have a bad feeling because the pictures consist practically exclusively of de minimis components. It therefore seems questionable to me whether the de minimis rule really still applies in such a case. – But please, I am not a deletion fanatic, I just wanted to make the problem clear. --Aristeas (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was under the impression that multiple de minimis subjects do not add up, each applies individually. Like Daniel said, we have plenty of skyline photos of Paris, Dubai, Seoul, and other cities with no FoP. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, seems that there is more or less a consensus that this kind of photographs does not raise any legal problems. That’s nice, I am sorry for disturbing the discussion here and will shut up my mouth regarding any kind of FoP questions in the future. Sorry, --Aristeas (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aristeas: There's not need to apologize! That was a legitimate and important question to ask. This kind of thing may be second nature for long time regulars here, but it is certainly worth bringing it up again occasionally for those who are new to this. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not the same PoV. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloem van een muurfijnstraal (Erigeron karvinskianus). 13-06-2021. (d.j.b).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2021 at 04:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Flower of a Erigeron karvinskianus. Focus stack of 28 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question can you fix blurred border (notes added) of the petals? This is common problem of the stacking program, if the subject details have same colour. --Ivar (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've tried to make improvements. Remark. I measured the width of the petals with a caliper. They are about 1 millimeter wide. If there is another petal without space on it. then the colors of the petals merge into each other. That does not produce a sharp contrast. on a petal of 1 mm.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lovely. Seven Pandas (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I saw more mistakes, anoticed. --Mile (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your response: I may be able to fix the error. But I don't see what you mean.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably editing errors, see that black spot. --Mile (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 12:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae

File:종묘 정전 신실 (2013).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2021 at 13:19:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#South Korea
Info created by en:Cultural Heritage Administration - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 13:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 13:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I think it would look better cropped in on both sides (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I cropped to alternative file. May I know a reason for your suggestion?— Sadopaul 💬 📁 00:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think by squaring it up more it focuses more on the space that gives us that tunnel perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for advising! I will substitute this with the alternative version when another one suggests the same. Hope you have a great weekend ;)— Sadopaul 💬 📁

Comment I like this picture, but the cropped version is better. I don't know which focal length was used, but for these kind of photographs a long focal length is suggested. --XRay 💬 06:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Change description: Crop according to Daniel Case. @Daniel Case and XRay: — Sadopaul 💬 📁 13:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it is obviously better than former one! Thanks for enhancing comment.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 13:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, obviously. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the cropped version. --Aristeas (talk) 07:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shame. There's potential for a great photo here. But the eye is led into a haze and out-of-focus area. Without that flaw, I'd likely support, though taking it to the next level, would be a person (not a tourist). -- Colin (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Henry39 (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Also not very big. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 12:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#South Korea

The chosen alternative is: File:종묘 정전 신실 (2013) (cropped).jpg

File:Jēkabs Kazaks - Three Old Ladies - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2021 at 08:47:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Groups
Info created by Jēkabs Kazaks - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support weak s due to reflection. --Mile (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 18:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Groups

File:Troodos lizard (Phoenicolacerta troodica).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2021 at 11:15:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Lacertidae (True Lizards)
Info A lizard endemic to Cyprus. Focus stack of 15 images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light and background were helpful. --Mile (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- eh, no wow. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No vote from me now, but while of course it's a good photo, it's disappointing that the focus of the picture isn't on the head, and I believe I've seen Charles oppose photos in QIC on that basis, but I'm certain others have. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the focus is on the head, but it can always be sharper. 1/1000 sec would have been better even though I was on monopod. No time to change settings this time when it darted into the sunshine. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light, nice colors --Muhammad (talk) 11:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Lacertidae (True Lizards)

File:Jardin de Kerbonne01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2021 at 15:27:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by S. DÉNIEL - uploaded by S. DÉNIEL - nominated by S. DÉNIEL -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Arbre du jardin de Kerbonne (Brest) au soleil couché. -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak regretful oppose I like the idea but this iteration doesn't quite pull it off (definitely a QI though). The sky's great and the tree's great, but there's too much going on in the bottom, and frankly the tree would look a little better in this image with some of those outer branches pruned. Daniel Case (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Daniel's remarks about the bottom - if the foliage and branches on the right didn't overlap with anything, I would have been likely to support the nomination, depending on exactly how the photo ended up, but basically, as much as I think this is a good photo and very pleasant, I think the tree would have to be set off more from the rest in order for this to be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mekepung.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2021 at 17:44:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
Info created by Imadedana - uploaded by Imadedana - nominated by Till.niermann -- Till (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Till (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not everything is sharp, f-level too low. I also don't think that it is very nice for the buffalos --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course not everything is sharp, given the rapid movements. Anyway, this picture reminds me of File:Mud Cow Racing - Pacu Jawi - West Sumatra, Indonesia.jpg, also from Indonesia. --Till (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Proven cruelty to animals (PETA). Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this is a valid reason to oppose, we have to delist any photo showing weaponry being fired or war scenes, for they are proven cruelty to humans. --Kreuz schnabel 15:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If PETA was our point of reference, we'd also have to exclude show jumping and other equestrian sports as well as banish any non-vegen dishes in the food photography department. Depicting something does not equal approving or endorsing it. --El Grafo (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exciting and beautiful. I don't think cruelty to animals makes a photo bad. Lots of things that are real and worth showing aren't all happiness and joy for everyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think that cruelty to animals is an automatic oppose for me, but it needs to be really really good in terms of technical, educational, and wow. The technical part is ok, but we have plenty of similarly action-filled shots with more detail and the composition isn't great (the angle at which they're traveling doesn't match the horizontal framing). Good educational marks, but in terms of wow it's hard not to compare it to two other FPs we have of Indonesian cattle racing, one of which was picture of the year last year. Different form of racing, yes, and thus this may serve well as a VI, but not an FP for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose; we have technically better FPs. Background could be sharper, and it seems like there's a little CA on the lead driver. Nice and colorful though. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support That's a pretty good action shot for me. --El Grafo (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of Yi Haeung (National Museum of Korea).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2021 at 23:26:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings
Info created by Lee Han-chul and Yu Suk - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 23:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 23:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Zoom viewer problem: "No response from server iipsrv.fcgi". Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I don't know how zoomviewer working. If you want to use zoom viewer for this image, you may go here: link. Thank you for comment:)— Sadopaul 💬 📁 08:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had no problem with the viewer. Maybe your browser needs to be updated. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My Firefox browser is up to date. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive reproduction. --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Mile (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The zoom viewer is still a bit balky for me - I have to enlarge the page view to 110% before I can see the + and - functions - but I've certainly seen enough to justify a supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 17:56, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings

File:Pulpo común (Octopus vulgaris), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 108.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2021 at 18:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda
Info Common octopus (Octopus vulgaris), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. This mollusc is the most studied of all octopus species. It is cosmopolitan, that is, a global species, which ranges from the eastern Atlantic, extends from the Mediterranean Sea and the southern coast of England, to the southern coast of South Africa. The common octopus hunts at dusk. Crabs, crayfish, and bivalve molluscs (two-shelled, such as cockles) are preferred, although the octopus eats almost anything it can catch. It is able to change colour to blend in with its surroundings, and is able to jump upon any unwary prey that strays across its path. Using its beak, it is able to break into the shells of shelled molluscs. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose main subject partly oof, resolution quite low for 5DS R. --Ivar (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some areas could be sharper but there is detail here and the most important part of it, the eyes, are sharp. Poco a poco (talk) 10:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose True, eyes are sharp, at 5 MPx photo @16 mm. Some problems, Manual focus, f/5.6 even on 16mm might have shallow DOF, color space still Uncalibrated, try to put so RGB space. Composition is a bit strange. You can use Auto program too, they can often make better solution. Wish to see this in full size. --Mile (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment General remark: When the EXIF data of any photo say “uncalibrated” this just means that the colour space is not sRGB – for some strange historical reasons every other colour space is described as “uncalibrated”. The EXIF data of this photo also contain a hint about the colour space which is actually used, it’s ProPhoto RGB, so every decent image viewer should be able to display the image correctly. --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per possibly fixing these issues. Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find anything concrete and meaningful above that I could fix, autoprogram? mocking about manual mode or actual settings having no clue about uw photography? composition strange?, sorry, just blabla. I may upload pictures in the future from a GoPro, much easier to carry, cheaper, no pixelpicking there with max 12 MPx, and so on. --Poco a poco (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Poco a poco (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sympetrum flaveolum in Nepal.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2021 at 07:08:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)
Info created by Mildeep - uploaded by Mildeep - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 07:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 07:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love the picture, but this is not Sympetrum flaveolum. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp- is it Pantala flavescens?--Biplab Anand (Talk) 05:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like Crocothemis erythraea Biplab Anand. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ great at thumbnail, but imo oversharpened at full resolution, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link refined ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. Sharpness and contrast overdone. --Kreuz schnabel 11:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image with lots of wow. I don't see a problem with sharpness and contrast. --GRDN711 (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overprocessed per Kreuz and Ivar. Noisy as well. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm quite impressed with this, except that the unsharp area is disconcerting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per others. But really a shame, because this image seems to possess the potential to become FP, with a softer processing. Any chance to improve the post-treatment? -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mildeep ji, can you fix the above mentioned problems? Thanks--Biplab Anand (Talk) 05:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done corrected, Thank you for nomination. --Mildeep (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Good concept but over sharpened. --Muhammad (talk) 11:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ivar, Kreuz, Basile Morin and Muhammad, the author have fixed the problem. please take a look now--Biplab Anand (Talk) 06:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. ~~For a reason I can't explain, the new version doesn't display on my screen. Not a "refresh" problem, something else. Thus I can't evaluate the current candidate, sorry.~~ Will try again later -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really striking and high resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose oversharpening is gone, but some areas are out of focus. --Ivar (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are some areas that are not as sharp as the rest (top right wing tip, middle of the abdomen), but so what? I don't find that disturbing unless I pixel-peep, and the wow factor and pleasing colors easily make up for that. Finally a dragonfly picture that manages to stick out among the many, many, excellent FPs we already have. --El Grafo (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I really like this photo, but the unsharp part of the body is disconcerting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo. --Aristeas (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)

File:Crataegus arnoldiana in La Jaysinia (6).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2021 at 19:42:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Rosaceae
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deservedly a QI but just too complicated for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough. Harsh light, cluttered background -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile – lighting too harsh. --Kreuz schnabel 16:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hypholoma fasciculare in Haute-Savoie (8).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2021 at 19:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family_:_Strophariaceae
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's a decent shot, but I don't see anything outstanding about it. It's not particularly educational, as it only shows the top of the heads - no gills, no stems. The sulphur tuft is not particularly rare (quite the opposite), nor does this show a particularly nice collection. The technical quality of the shot is good, but not outstanding. The lighting is OK but nothing to write home about, there's nothing exciting about the composition either. In sum, there's nothing bad about this, but it does not manage to stick out among previous mushroom FPs nor the contents of Category:Hypholoma fasciculare. Sorry: no WOW for me. --El Grafo (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see the possibility for a crop that might improve the composition, but I will also note the greenish halo visible around some of the outermost mushrooms. That would need to be addressed before talking about a crop. Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. Nice but nothing special indeed. --Kreuz schnabel 16:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poseidone di Aligi Sassu - Rignano sull'Arno -.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2021 at 10:42:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Italy
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by PROPOLI87 -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing light, and the sculpture is cut at the bottom left -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentUnfortunately the monument is surrounded by a railing and if you photograph the base, which is still flush with the water of the fountain, the trident of Neptune does not enter.So I still photographed the whole sculpture. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no. The dustbin is sharper than the statue, which does not stand out against the cluttered background. Random crop, too tight, cutting the object on the left and bottom. Verticals leaning in background. Sorry if I’m rude but this looks rather like a random tourist shot than a carefully composed image. --Kreuz schnabel 16:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to others ... not really a good angle on the statue, and busy background is very distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You won't win this one, but I think you deserve credit for doing something different. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for appreciation.(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turdus rufiventris, Rio de Janeiro, RJ.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2021 at 19:41:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Turdidae (Thrushes)
Info created by Rmparanhos - uploaded by Rmparanhos - nominated by Rmparanhos -- Rmparanhos (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rmparanhos (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very busy background; doesn't stand out from our other bird pictures. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added the missing gallery link. The gallery links are not just a boring exercise, they are really useful for nominators: comparing your photo to the FPs already present in the same gallery can help you to decide whether your photo has a good chance to be nominated or not ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blur near the bird's head is distracting. Also, the bird is not very sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The natural background is ok for me. But the bird's head is unsharp and the tail feathers are cut off. Nice catch though. --Cayambe (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:CodexMendoza01.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2021 at 00:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

1541 Codex Mendoza page depicting the legend behind the founding of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan. The document was written and illustrated by Aztec natives under Spanish supervision.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info 1541 Codex Mendoza page depicting the legend behind the founding of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan. The document was written and illustrated by Aztec natives under Spanish supervision. uploaded by A. C. Santacruz - nominated by A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had considered submitting a cropped version depicting only the central square, but I decided to leave that to the community's discretion as I did not want to take away parts of the image without good reason due to the historical significance--that is, the city states of Culhuacan and Tenayuca shown below being defeated in battle against the Aztecs. A. C. Santacruz (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --A.Savin 00:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:El infante Carlos María Isidro de Borbón (Museo del Prado).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2021 at 23:04:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1800-1850
Info Portrait of Infante Carlos María Isidro of Spain, by court painter Vicente López Portaña. Carlos was brother of Ferdinand VII of Spain, and his next in line in the Spanish Salic law of succession due to there being no direct male heir. However, when Ferdinand issued the Pragmatic Sanction of 1830, the succession then passed on to his daughter Isabella II of Spain as his first child (regardless of gender). This led to the Carlist Wars upon Ferdinand's death, a series of bloody civil wars in Spain during the 19th century. Portrait created by Vicente López Portaña, c.1823 - uploaded by Tiberioclaudio99 - nominated by A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Better, alternative image for same subject as Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carlos María Isidro de Borbón, por Vicente López.jpg A. C. Santacruz (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --A.Savin 00:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Храм Смоленской иконы Пресвятой Богородицы в Новогорбово ворота.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2021 at 23:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Russia
Info created by Alexander Artyomenkov - uploaded by Niklitov - nominated by Niklitov -- Niklitov (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niklitov (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, perspective needs correction, and I doubt that can be done without compromising the image's featurability. Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The perspective distortion is part of the composition here, not a mistake that would need correction. --Kreuz schnabel 17:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A perspective shot like this one needs to be symmetric to convey its idea. Crop suggestion added. Overall surprisingly low quality – why 400 ISO? And what’s the distracting shiny object on the left edge? Pity the main gate’s right wing is partly covering the building behind. --Kreuz schnabel 18:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done (crop) Thanks! — Niklitov (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the talent of the photographer is being judged here, not only the perfection of the apparatus, right? — Niklitov (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, what's judged here is the greatness or lack of greatness of the photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What’s judged here is the "outstandingness" of the resulting image (or, as Ikan put it, the "greatness"). While both a talented photographer and a good gear are useful things to take a great image, they are not really taken into account. It would be hard for a beginner with a cheap phonecam to get his photo featured here but it’s not impossible – given the greatness of the image will make up for its shortcomings on the technical side. – This here image is skilfully composed and has a good idea IMHO, there’s just a lack of sharpness and the unfortunate right wing of the gate :-/ --Kreuz schnabel 15:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moral support It has some minor weaknesses, but it is photographically interesting. A very welcome diversion from what we're used to see here. --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The distortion is not convincing me. --Milseburg (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distortion --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Migrant hawker (Aeshna mixta) male on Weigela Florida Brigela Moulin Rouge.jpg

File:Petasites hybridus inflorescence - Keila.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2021 at 11:50:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Asteroideae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Difficult object. Slightly dark bottom right. But for me well done.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 21:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Basile Morin (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Asteroideae

File:Theo van Doesburg - Girl with Ranunculus - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2021 at 09:07:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Children
Info created by Theo van Doesburg - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reproduction. – The painting itself may seem not that exciting today, because we are used to pop art etc., but back in 1914 this certainly was a very exciting, brave painting. --Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Children

File:20190428 DFL 1. Bundesliga FCN - FCB DSC 7673.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2021 at 09:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The german magazine "Spiegel" used a photo like this in a recent article about soccer, so at least the editor liked a photo showing a flank. I always liked this photo, though not technically perfect, but maybe I'm not the only one, so I'll give it a try! -- Granada (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer the ball sharp, was it in Der Spiegel? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, it was a completely different match with just the same setup of the scene and also an unsharp ball: https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/deutsche-nationalmannschaft-das-neue-dfb-trainerteam-erfolg-durch-eckbaelle-a-59114a6b-dd74-4d12-ac35-89353a333672
Oppose The ball gets lost against the background. Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not lost to me. I like the look of concentration on the player and the motion blur on the ball. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, and the player's eye-line is on the ball, which is essential. -- Colin (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Motion blur, the subject is not very sharp, and the ball even less -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose motion blur. Hard to pass with Manual, i would go Shutter priority and nothing less than 1/1000s (just for player motion). --Mile (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Limited wow on my side, plus motion blur and the ball almost lost before the background. Nice shot but not that great. --Kreuz schnabel 07:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. -- Karelj (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that the photo lacks a sense of movement to justify the technical faults by way of composition. It's certainly a nice photograph but I agree with Kreuzschnabel's sentiment A. C. Santacruz (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A. C. Santacruz: You are not eligible to vote on FPC. --A.Savin 00:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beech forest Molla, Sweden - 2021.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2021 at 09:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info created by Vitaly_repin - uploaded by Vitaly_repin - nominated by Vitaly repin -- Vitaly Repin (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vitaly Repin (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Surely nice but by no means outstanding in terms of composition – no wow. Plus leaning verticals, blueish white balance, washed-out colours, random crop with single twigs and leaves protruding into the frame, and overall low phonecam quality. --Kreuz schnabel 18:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I was out hiking yesterday in the Catskills and saw many, many scenes better than this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice atmosphere but Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good image but per oithers - not enough wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Mary church in Chateauneuf-la-Foret (6).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2021 at 15:59:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is not very appealing. Distracting bush at the left. The architecture is not exceptional, and this angle of view very average -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sepia común (Sepia officinalis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 62.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2021 at 18:22:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda
Info Common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis), Arrábida National Park, Portugal. The common cuttlefish is one of the largest and best-known cuttlefish species. They are a migratory species that spend the summer and spring inshore for spawning and then move to depths of 100 to 200m during autumn and winter. They only have a lifespan of 1–2 years and have many predators including sharks, dolphins, seals, fish, and cephalopods which includes other cuttlefish. During the day, most cuttlefish can be found buried below the substrate and fairly inactive. At night however, they are actively searching for prey and can ambush them from under the substrate. Cuttlefish are carnivorous and eat a variety of organisms including crustaceans (crabs and shrimp), small fish, molluscs (clams and snails), and sometimes other cuttlefish. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Does the cuttlefish have its eyes closed and do you think it's asleep? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek It wasn't asleep, as it was moving around looking for prey. If they sleep they would lay on a surface, not just float around. I think that the eyes look always the same way independently of whether they sleep or not, but I haven't seen myself any cuttlefish sleeping. ~~In fact this is the only one cuttlefish I've ever seen.~~ sorry, that was wrong I saw another one, a small one, which I forgot, in St Elmo Bay, Malta, 2 weeks ago and one today near the Cape of Espichel in Portugal Poco a poco (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC) They are rare in the areas where I've dived. Poco a poco (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture! -- Radomianin (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Isiwal (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support … as in a fairy story. --Aristeas (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda

File:Olfen, Dreibogenbrücke -- 2021 -- 8888.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2021 at 04:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 04:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 04:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This immediately caught my eye. I love it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would wait till all bridge would be on sun, or before sunrise. --Mile (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, but: Before sunrise all the shadows are missing. It wasn't beautiful, may be good as architecture photograph only, but not as FPC. Later without the shadows of the trees the shadows were very small. It was necessary to have the sun from the right to improve the structure. --XRay 💬 14:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 19:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Could have used f/11 or f/16 to keep the foreground plants sharp, and I wish there were some clouds on the upper right for balance, but still FP to me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The bush in the bottom, left side of the photo is distracting. Although, astonishing photo.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 10:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany

File:Painting of Characters on Eight-panel Folding Screen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2021 at 23:26:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Science#Text
Info created by unknown - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 23:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think there must be more proper category for calligraphic arts than 'Others#Others - wide' but have no idea.-- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 23:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great detail, and an interesting style I'm unfamiliar with. Is there any way to deduct a range of dates for the composition that lasts less than from 1392-1897? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I searched that but I could only find that It was assumed in19th century [1] (Korean). I have written this on the page.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 09:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this 18th century painting characters and events in fables are drawn directly in characters. Later (early 19th century), whole fables are abbreviated to symbol, such as fish and bamboo as depicted in the first screen of the file. Much later, people draw decorative but unrelated things, such as peony.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 09:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for researching that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very detailed. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Science#Text

File:Вид на музей. Городок, Руза, Открытое письмо 1910-е.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2021 at 21:50:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1910-1920
Info created by Phototype Scherer, Nabholz & Co., Moscow. — uploaded by Niklitov — nominated by Niklitov — Niklitov (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Niklitov (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the historic importance? The "city of Ruz" as it was at the time? Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info Yes 1) the "city of Ruza" as it was at the time (1911-1912) and 2) this is one of the first museums in the Moscow Governorate - the history of the Ruzа Regional Museum and 3) Published by famouse German-Russian-Swiss-Courland Scherer, Nabholz & Co. (Phototype photostudio in Moscow, Kuznetsky Most). — Niklitov (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That links to a disambiguation page. Did you mean this place? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, w:en:Ruza, Ruzsky District, Moscow Oblast. — Niklitov (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support As a postcard, I think this is quite sharp enough, and it's interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow, and missing fine detail. --A.Savin 03:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin, the photo is very dynamic and therefore rare: сarousels — giant-stride is wow!) — Niklitov (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was, by some chance, documented by Prokoudine-Gorski? --Andrei (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Andrei, I looked at the Ruzsky Regional Museum's scientific doc: Scherer, Nabholz & Co. postcard collections. — Niklitov (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:RENFE 730 Pedralba de la Pradería.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2021 at 06:09:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated Ivar (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cloud detracts from this one. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with Charles, the clouds are distracting. I find they draw my eyes away from the train. —Bruce1ee^talk 12:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the cloud here, it reinforces the horizontal motion of the train. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a very strong image for me, partially because it's not clear what the main subject is. For a train shot, the train is not prominent enough. For a landscape with bonus train, there's too much landscape hidden behind the clouds that I cannot see. The clouds are not a problem per se, but there's nothing happening above them so that the whole upper third or quarter of the image has nothing interesting to offer. Something like a 16:9 crop from the bottom right corner to just below the top edge of the clouds feel a bit more balanced to me, but I'm not sure I'd vote pro on that either. --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing --Co mmon ists 12:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per King of Hearts. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Second Beach Olympic June 2018 007.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2021 at 05:53:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Washington
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photos in the category suggest this beach has many sea stacks and arches and this isn't even the most impressive one. The image here is fine, but just a QI really. Would be better to include several or a more impressive stack, along with great light. -- Colin (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I was going for here was a simple and elegant composition, with the lines leading from the bottom right to the stack and its reflection in the back. Anyways, thanks for the review. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see that. Very harmonious and pleasing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Église Sainte-Brigitte (Mittelwihr) (1).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2021 at 07:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A good idea and a beautiful autumn view. It’s a pity that the symmetry is not perfect. – I have taken the liberty to change the gallery link; IMHO this photo would fit better into the gallery for exteriors of religious buildings. --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France

File:Joséphine Baker par Jean Chassaing.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2021 at 19:16:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Posters_and_advertisements
Info created by Jean Chassaing (1905-1938) - uploaded by Guise - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Be careful, its huge! P.S. trying to make Göring uncomfortable-- Andrei (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support High-quality and interesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. Yes, let’s give Göring some more likeable neighbours in the gallery ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts and Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 09:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Beautiful Art Deco poster. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is usually the sort of image I suggest would be better as a .png, but here you can see the poster texture in a way that I don't think that format would do justice. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Posters_and_advertisements

File:Pope Paul III (Titian - National Museum of Capodimonte).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2021 at 19:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 19:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 19:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I tend to believe that the Web Gallery of Art has (in its version) more authentic colours, look also at the other reproductions on Commons. The level of detail is not higher (or maybe even lower) than for example here, despite bigger resolution. That is, what has more fine detail are definitely all the scratches and artefacts on the canvas; but obviously not the far more important details, such as his eyes. I also have the impression that there are some very poor attempts to retouche something, for example several ones on the beard. --A.Savin 19:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that my photo is better than others and anyway I have not retouched anything on the photo and as such there is nothing poor about it. However for 12800 iso I think it's a great result, thank you.--Co mmon ists 20:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per A.Savin. Looks glary and washed out in part. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gletsjerpad naar de Morteratschgletsjer 12-09-2019. (d.j.b) 16.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2021 at 04:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons (Graubünden)
Info Stray boulder left behind by the receding glacier in a desolate landscape.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what we call an 'eratic'. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, solid radial composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Excellent photo and solid encyclopedic content. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The big rock is stunning -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. Besides I like the contrast between barrenness and vegetation. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Switzerland#Grisons (Graubünden)

File:Historical stylization — Slavic of the 12-13th centuries, Karoling Club Ruza.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2021 at 21:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info created by Dmitry Nikolaev — uploaded by Niklitov — nominated by Niklitov — Niklitov (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Variant 2. Pls find discussion about Variant 1. — Niklitov (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Niklitov (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We've just spent ages on the pervious nom. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Charlesjsharp! Wasted not in vain! Why? The photographer took into account and corrected your comments! For example: 1) “The photographer failed to get all six people looking at the camera. Cropped at right.” — Done in new version. 2) “It now needs the 'modified from the original' template.” {{Retouched picture}} — Done in new and old version. 2) “Horse...” Not done Sorry, here's the styling. This is also why all photography is called stylization. — Best Regards! Niklitov (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer failed to get all six people looking at the camera. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I feel like Charles ;–), but leaving that aside this is IMHO a better candidate. I cannot judge the historical authenticity, but I appreciate the time and energy that was needed for this arrangement, and the setting is really nice. Technically the photo is not perfect, but good (IMHO it’s a little bit overexposed, but that is a matter of taste, and some books and YouTubers teach us that we should expose people photos like that), and the light and the colours are very nice. --Aristeas (talk) 11:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an improvement. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I still think while it’s pretty good and well deserves the green badge, there are still some flaws (oversaturation on the reds, overexposure on the fleece), and I don’t like the crop. You could cut off almost 10 percent off the bottom. So, it’s good picture but still below FP threshold for me. --Kreuz schnabel 15:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done (crop ~10 percent off the bottom). — Niklitov (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Varyag family. Very nice portrait and costumes. --Mile (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here the imagery of the Slavs families (the Vyatichi tribe, Citizens of Veliky Novgorod), although you are right, the influence of Scandinavian culture is in the element of clothing. — Niklitov (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support My only nit is that the woman in blue is not looking straight at the camera. But overall this is a very interesting image, and quite different from our usual crop at FPC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others,sorry --Co mmon ists 12:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain --Andrei (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is better and IMO deserves the star as a composition, even with the anachronisms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others -- Radomianin (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Traditions

File:Carlos María Isidro de Borbón, por Vicente López.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2021 at 16:40:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info Portrait of en:Infante Carlos María Isidro of Spain, by court painter en:Vicente López Portaña. Carlos was brother of en:Ferdinand VII of Spain, and his next in line in the Spanish en:Salic law of succession due to there being no direct male heir. However, when Ferdinand issued the en:Pragmatic Sanction of 1830, the succession then passed on to his daughter en:Isabella II of Spain as his first child (regardless of gender). This led to the en:Carlist Wars upon Ferdinand's death, a series of bloody civil wars in Spain during the 19th century. Portrait created by Vicente López Portaña - uploaded by A. C. Santacruz - nominated by A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is my first nomination so if I messed something up any feedback is super welcome ^u^ A. C. Santacruz (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see the guidelines above, about resolution. With less than 2 million pixels and a poor image quality (noise, unsharpness, too heavy contrast and saturation), this image has no chances in FPC. You should try going back there and get a better one! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks for the comment Alvesgaspar! I found a higher quality photo at 2.5 million px and have since uploaded it, and will now resubmit giving me proper credit for upload. A. C. Santacruz (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Hmm nevermind it seems it has updated within the nomination. I have edited the credits accordingly. A. C. Santacruz (talk) 21:28, 7
Oppose -- A little better but way too far from FP quality standards. Please compare with this much better picture of the same subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have changed the gallery link: most portrait paintings are in Non-photographic media/People#Paintings, so IMHO that would be the best-fitting gallery. --Aristeas (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvegaspar. Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small and not an outstanding reproduction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salmonete de fango (Mullus barbatus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 59.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2021 at 17:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order_:_Perciformes_(Perch-like_Fishes)
Info 15 centimetres (5.9 in) long red mullet (Mullus barbatus), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. This species of goatfish can be found in the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and the northeastern and central eastern Atlantic Ocean, where its range extends from Scandinavia southwards to Senegal. It is a demersal fish and occurs at depths ranging from 10 to 328 m (30 to 1,080 ft). It can grow to a standard length of 30 cm (12 in), but a more common length is about half that and is carnivorous, the diet consisting mainly of polychaete worms, bivalve molluscs and crustaceans. The flesh of the red mullet is much esteemed and it is the target of fisheries, especially in the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and northeastern and central eastern Atlantic Ocean. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 04:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wider crop, fish head is to far in corner. --Mile (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe could be sharper but a rather small fish. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Order_:_Perciformes_(Perch-like_Fishes)

File:Exposition universelle - Paris, 1878 by Isidore Laurent Deroy - Gallica.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2021 at 10:24:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by Isidore Laurent Deroy - uploaded and - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, fine reproduction, historically important. My only question would be how much of the yellow cast may be due to aging paper and whether it should be digitally restored, but a faithful reproduction of the print's actual condition has value in itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have taken the liberty to change the gallery link. The image does not show a “landscape” in the usual meaning; IMHO it fits better into the “Historical” gallery. (Another candidate would be Exteriors#Outdoor events.) --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 07:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1850-1900

File:Francisco de Goya - Escena de Inquisición - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2021 at 21:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1800-1850
Info Painting by Francisco Goya depicting an auto de fé, an act of public penance carried out between the 15th and 19th centuries of condemned heretics and apostates imposed by the Inquisition, based on 1800-1810 first-hand accounts. Painted by Francisco Goya - uploaded by Hello world - nominated by A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if I may add, I think that the particular historic value of this piece is due in large part to the late date in which it was produced. I think when most people think of the Inquisition they think of it in terms of the late medieval period, with the name of 15th century Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada becoming almost synonymous with the Spanish one (and little mention is made in popular culture of the Mexican or Portuguese ones). An artwork depicting contemporary trials in the 19th century, barely a few decades before Spain entered the industrial age, is in my opinion of high value as it dispels this distorted notion of the institution. A. C. Santacruz (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 14:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reproduction of a painting which is very characteristic for the history of Spain: “¡Vivan las cadenas!” ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1800-1850

File:Pointe de Nyon & Pointe d'Angolon (12).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2021 at 15:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely composition, though WB tint is a bit more green than I would like. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a lot to enjoy here: the curve of the slopes in the foreground, the mountain in the background, the meandering path, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Attractive slope -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo - rich in impressions. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for this photo.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 10:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition of curves and slopes. --Aristeas (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can get lost in this one (Although I'd like to know why the two peaks—the one on the right especially—look as though something's reflecting a lot of light onto them from below?) Daniel Case (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't know why the two peaks are reflecting a lot of light. Maybe because of morning light? I don't know, sorry... Tournasol7 (talk) 17:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France#Haute-Savoie

File:Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 HDR.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2021 at 04:54:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. An arch may propose photographic opportunities but this one is rather small and the view is nothing special. The crop here makes it look more like you are in a cave. I think your light/processing has produced a washed-out result. Compare the image on this page (just before "We continued hiking for 0.2 miles"). Your File:Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 009.jpg is better lit/processed (there are stronger shadows on the mountains/rocks), and better illustrates the arch itself, though your shadow spoils it. -- Colin (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I actually think the view works ... but for that large distracting rock at its lower left. And while in its absence I might have been able to forgive the washed-out lighting, the houses in the valley below do look sort of unnatural, more like dabs of paint, in the light. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and others. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is working well to me. --Milseburg (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually like the view, too, but could you improve the valley from some darker exposure to moderate the washed-out/hazy look? Just asking, --Aristeas (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an already an HDR, and the darkest frame is properly exposed for the valley. I don't want to make it too unnatural by making the final output as dark as the darkest frame; HDR will inevitably result in some compression of the tone curve. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer! --Aristeas (talk) 14:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 04:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Traditional farmhouse - Santana 06.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2021 at 06:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support great colors.Seven Pandas (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Seven Pandas -- Radomianin (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special shapes -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The lower right corner is distracting, but the overall composition is really good. Clever idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal

File:Boulevard Hotel (Neon sign), Miami Beach.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2021 at 14:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info Neon sign of the Boulevard Hotel in the Art Deco District of Miami Beach. Created, uploaded and nominated by Radomianin -- Radomianin (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose due to the palm leaf breaking in on the right. Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much for your review, Daniel. I was conscious that the palm frond can be perceived as disturbing. After some consideration, I decided to nominate it, because I found the palm leaves complementary and not disturbing. A retouching attempt unfortunately did more harm than help to the image. Greetings :) -- Radomianin (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support actually like the palm frond, gives the whole thing a Vice City kind of vibe. --El Grafo (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support No Miami Beach photo without a palm frond ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe not extremely wowy, but a very nice picture and IMO deserving. Yes to the palm leaves. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 07:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States

File:Cyprus water frogs (Pelophylax cypriensis).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2021 at 13:07:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Ranidae (True Frogs)
Info Frogs endemic to the island of Cyprus. Focus stack of 15 images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Minor focus stacking issue around an eye at the right but overall clean -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, sorted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and compo, frogs are tricky because they are very shiny Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Frogs are great! --Andrei (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians#Family : Ranidae (True Frogs)

File:Greven, Fuestrup, Dortmund-Ems-Kanal, Alte Fahrt, Sicherheitssperrtor -- 2021 -- 3918.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2021 at 04:46:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 04:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 04:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support You had a really good eye for composition with this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The beauty of transience :) -- Radomianin (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Metal too rusted. -- Karelj (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen a lot of reasons to give a contra vote, but this one I haven't seen. What do you think I can do to reduce the rust? What should I do with historical machines? Please come back to good reviews and reasons. --XRay 💬 01:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you should not reduce the rust, but you should not nominate this horrible image for FP. -- Karelj (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask you to refrain from personal attacks.--XRay 💬 15:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no idea, what you are talking about. I was writing about your horrible image, but no any word about your person and related personal attack... -- Karelj (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, "horrible" is a disrespectful term in connection with a nomination. --XRay 💬 17:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Everyone may have their own opinion about the pictures. Tastes are different. In my opinion, a review should also be helpful. And I personally don't rate pictures that I don't like, either. But everyone has to know that for themselves. --XRay 💬 17:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet decided how to vote (on the basis of composition/overall impression), but I'm puzzled by this oppose. The rust definitely enhances rather than detracts from the image IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, 'too rusted' is a puzzling reason for an oppose, but how can you give a rational oppose reason for this sort of nomination? As I've said before, 'I don't like it' should be allowed for artistic-type nominations. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think "Not an interesting subject" is probably a defensible oppose rationale. It could get pushback, but it's a reasonable point of view, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I you don't like it, that quite obviously means that you are not WOW-ed by it. Perfectly good reason to oppose for any kind of picture, not only artsy ones. --El Grafo (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the charm of decay. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have liked the teeth of the sprocket a little sharper. But I think the blur was a conscious choice.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Machines

File:Galena - Huallanca, Bologesi, Ancash, Peru.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2021 at 14:54:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info all by Ivar (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, valuable contribution. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 07:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals

File:Violet dropwing (Trithemis annulata) female Cyprus.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2021 at 14:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)
Info No FPs of this species. Focus stack of 10 images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one note added and stacking program has bespattered the background, it's not very hard to fix it. --Ivar (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Operator error. Sorted thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment better, but the background is still blotchy? Are the individual frames really looking like that? --Ivar (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the background artefacts. Hopefully gone now. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ~~Some errors !?~~ --Mile (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not errors, Mile. The clarity of the image allows damage to the wing to be seen. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you edit your oppose reason please Mile. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not much, how are you making edits ? Your original 7+ MB photo went now to 2MB+ which make some nice results in banding. Also i do not like pink "smudges" in back. You should start from orignal, the edits. --Mile (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive photo of the dragonfly, but you might want to smooth out the posterization lines in the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, introduced during last attempt! Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very big improvement, thanks! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- Radomianin (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 05:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Chasers, Skimmers, Darters and others)

File:Flight of Refugees Across Wrecked Bridge in Korea (Original).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2021 at 04:26:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1950-1960
Info created by w:Max Desfor - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 04:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Korean war is one of the most impactful events in 1950-1960 but there has been no FP still. This picture shows refugees evacuating from Pyeongyang to South. The resolution is somewhat low but it seems due to restriction of contemporary photography technique (other contemporary FPs are similar).-- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 04:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The notice on the file says "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1926 and 1963, and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed." The notice on the linked AP page says: "This content is intended for editorial use only. For other uses, additional clearances may be required." Which one is it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I followed a copyright notice in Category:Photographs distributed by Associated Press and then, as I know, they can be used as PD even though AP says that.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 09:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These press agencies are notorious for copyfraud. COM:ALAMY is the worst, claiming images they don't even own, but it is normal for other agencies to continue to sell their own works even after they have entered the public domain. That said, @Sadopaul: have you actually performed a search of copyright renewals to ensure that the copyright has not been renewed? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Actually I have pursued for a half-hour but I could not find sufficient information or reliable source standing for or against. In this case, this web linked in the category page above might be the most plausible answer.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 11:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Obvious current relevance. Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive photo. --Aristeas (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Famous, dramatic photograph, but maybe enlarged too much for its level of sharpness? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The file should be renamed. --Yann (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Rename done.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 07:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1950-1960

File:Franeker. Stadhuis. 03-08-2021. (actm) 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2021 at 04:36:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1800-1850
Info Franeker. Town Hall (1591). Portret (Portrait) van Eise Eisinga. Eise Eisinga
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Do cover reflextion on left side. weak S. --Mile (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Do you mean the list?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See 2 notes, there. Use brush. --Mile (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC) And please overwrite the photo on his wikipedia-pagina[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Is that allowed?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it is. Of course it is not OK to replace photos in Wikipedia articles by your own photos just because they are your own photos ;–), but is should always be welcome to replace obviously bad, blurred, low-resolution etc. photos by better ones. – But you do not need to do that anymore: In some Wikipedia articles the photo has already been replaced (thanks!), in some others I have replaced it. All these articles really profit from your photo, thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Peulle (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1800-1850

File:Carlo Bossoli Paris Rue Saint Antoine.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2021 at 08:38:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Streets
Info created by Carlo Bossoli - uploaded by FA2010 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support New to me, oil on metal. --Mile (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice at first. Wow, this explains the textures. --Andrei (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes more paintings.--Peulle (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A. C. Santacruz (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful painting and a nice-sized reproduction considering the dimensions of the painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 07:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have taken the liberty to change the gallery link: IMHO the “Historical” gallery is mostly for images documenting historical events (and photos of people), this painting fits better into the Exteriors#Streets gallery. --Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Andrei (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Streets

Marktplatz in Lauf an der Pegnitz edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2021 at 15:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Marktplatz 18 in Lauf an der Pegnitz
Marktplatz 21 in Lauf an der Pegnitz
Marktplatz 31 in Lauf an der Pegnitz
Marktplatz 38 in Lauf an der Pegnitz
Marktplatz 47 in Lauf an der Pegnitz
Marktplatz 53 in Lauf an der Pegnitz

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you please provide an explanation on why this meets the set criteria? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I misunderstood the nomination of set images. --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gooseneckbarnacles.jpg (delist), not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2021 at 09:58:56

Info Created and uploaded by Tompagenet - nominated and edited by Aurevilly (Original nomination)
Delist This picture doesn't even have a focus, it's strange how he got the featured picture.--Q28 (talk) 09:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quality is OK, and we don't delist only because "today it would not pass". --A.Savin 11:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A.Savin -- Radomianin (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still works as a texture. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very respectable photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 05:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bell Miner 1 - Nepean Weir.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2021 at 06:09:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Meliphagidae_(Honeyeaters)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 07:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is some soft magic glow around that bird … --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A clear wow. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I do find the leaves on the branch a little distracting, but the colors are very nice. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good lighting. Thanks for nominating. — Băng Tỏa 01:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors, nice background -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 05:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Axel ^(talk) 19:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Meliphagidae_(Honeyeaters)

File:James Abram Garfield, photo portrait seated.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2021 at 08:28:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by unknown - uploaded by Tom, restored by User:PawełMM, User:Quibik and User:Luxtaythe2nd - nominated by Sahaib3005 -- Sahaib3005 (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahaib3005 (talk) 08:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality. — Băng Tỏa 01:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good portrait, and no reason to enlarge it further. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- Radomianin (talk) 05:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1850-1900

File:Landscape with the Good Samaritan - Rembrandt.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2021 at 08:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Rembrandt - uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko. As always, there is some confusion with the colors, but this seems to be the most adequate version. -- Andrei (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another reproduction of great art. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support God this is such a gorgeous painting. Thanks so much for your upload! A. C. Santacruz (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although maybe that little bit of junk at the left could be cropped out? Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Andrei (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent digitization Buidhe (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes

File:Raabklamm Kaisermantel Echter Alant-5535.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2021 at 10:09:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info created by Isiwal - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Granada (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a long way from FP quality. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 14:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel like the sharpness on the butterfly is not exceptional for FPC nominations, but maybe more importantly, the composition is too crowded into the lower left corner. Without the additional flower, I might have voted for this or at least abstained from voting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan and Charles ... I couldn't put my finger on what it was, but they did. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Granada (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe a crop can help? I've cropped out the flower in second plan and the darker background at the left side. The picture looks much more harmonious now, IMO. Granada, you may nominate the cropped version if you like it. —capmo (talk) 04:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian Farmers' Protest by Ravan Khosa 08.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2021 at 07:03:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info created by Ravan Khosa - uploaded by - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is actually quite good. I like the light and the sharpness, and in terms of being a portrait of the man on the right, it's excellent. What bothers me here, though, is the composition. The man on the right is in focus, but cropped. The man in the background is out of focus, which in itself is fine, but also takes up more space in the frame than the man in the front.--Peulle (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good lighting. Beautiful colors (love it). But I'm wondering what happened to the left arm of the farmer on the right? Why wasn't it included in the shot? — Băng Tỏa 11:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo depicts a protest, so it makes sense to center it around the raised arms of both men. It's a good photo, but it has some technical problems (focus, distracting background). —capmo (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The man in the back is too out-of-focus to be a subject, but too in-focus to blend seamlessly into the background, and thus just ends up as a distraction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cohombro de mar pardo (Holothuria arguinensis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-23, DD 34.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2021 at 08:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Phylum_:_Echinodermata
Info Sea cucumber (Holothuria arguinensis) of an approximierte length of 30 centimetres (12 in), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. Sea cucumbers are echinoderms and are found on the sea floor worldwide. The number of holothurian species worldwide is over 1,700. Many of these are gathered for human consumption and some species are cultivated in aquaculture systems. Sea cucumbers serve a useful role in the marine ecosystem as they help recycle nutrients, breaking down detritus and other organic matter after which bacteria can continue the degradation process. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 10:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question About how big is this creature? The en.wp article doesn't say. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, it was about 30 centimetres (12 in) long, I added that information above and in the description page Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Support Great details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Phylum_:_Echinodermata

File:Deesis with Saints, triptych 18-19 cent.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2021 at 15:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity
Info Unknown creator. My photo. -- Mile (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but @PetarM: could you please replace the license with {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100|cc-zero}}? This just makes it extra clear that you are hereby releasing your rights as a photographer rather than merely describing the copyright status of the work. Users around the world will be confident that the image is PD and won't be affected by any adverse court ruling in their country. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Mile (talk) 05:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and edited the image description to include the names of the saints depicted. —capmo (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful triptych.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo of an impressive triptych. --Aristeas (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Religion#Christianity

File:La vallata di Poggiorsini vista nel dettaglio.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2021 at 13:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Agriculture#Italy
Info created and uploaded by Fishmax77 - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Light, shapes, colors and composition voting for a clear wow. ~~But regrettably, I miss a larger focus range.~~ -- Radomianin (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just discovered in metadata: The fact of the focal length of 386 mm changes my vote to Support :) -- Radomianin (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because with a longer focal length, the depth of field decreases. I had not considered this in my neutral vote. If I had looked in the metadata, my vote would have been a support :) -- Radomianin (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So because the short depth of field is intentional, that makes the photo great. I don't agree. Beautiful light and textures, but it's not good to me beyond about 40% of full size. I won't break up the unanimous support, though, as I do like the photo at full screen (about 20% of full size) and might react to larger sizes differently if I were looking at a framed photo on a gallery wall at a distance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your answer. I actually meant it more precisely that the shallow depth of field is technically caused. But I knew about it only after looking into the metadata and accepted the photo as it is, despite the flaw. Greetings :) -- Radomianin (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood it, Radomianin meant that (please correct me if I'm wrong!) at such a long focal length a narrow depth of field is unavoidable, rather than intentional. Closing down the aperture would bring only a small improvement, at the expense of sharpness ([2]). The photographer could perhaps have focused on the house instead of the centre of the image to make the narrow depth of field less apparent, but in my opinion the larger issue at play is the software used for developing the raw file (likely responsible for the blotchy appearence of the grass and dirt patches, see comment below). Anyway, still a wonderful picture and a great example of the benefits of using a telephoto lens for landscape photography - if one is willing to lug it around :) Julesvernex2 (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Julesvernex2, with your excellent knowledge of English, you have clearly stated my point. Thanks to Ikan for the constructive discussion, which is based only on my first decision that I have afterwards changed, based on (for me) new knowledge. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support very satisfying color and light — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere. --Famberhorst (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 05:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 07:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Fishmax77, Adobe Camera Raw often does a terrible job demosaicing Fuji's X-trans raw files (e.g. blotchy patches of grass). I would suggest using instead Capture One or Iridient X-Transformer (available as a plugin for Lightroom and Photoshop) to get the most out of this incredible image Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 17:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 19:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely excellent! --Basotxerri (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish I could paint this --Schnobby (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Agriculture#Italy

File:Bloemknoppen van Verbesina alternifolia. 07-09-2021. (d.j.b).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2021 at 04:34:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Flower buds in development of a Verbesina alternifolia Verbesina alternifolia. Focus stack of 17 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is kind of a soft halo over the topmost flower, I would suggest to fix that if possible. – Gallery link refined. --Aristeas (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Halo’s removed. Thank you for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Background noise ? Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Noise reduction + div. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a halo and there are many cloning errors. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See above.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Improved but lots to do on the spiders' webs. All blurry near the petals. It's a typical focus-stacking nightmare. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now it is much better. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae

File:Derveaux & Tavernier, Le plan de la ville, cité, université fauxbourg de Paris - Paris Musées.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2021 at 09:44:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Europe
Info Famous and beautiful map of Paris. New digital image from Paris Musées. Created by Derveaux & Tavernier - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support They sure don't make 'em like they used to! Interesting reading French from before spellings were standardized, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good scan of a very instructive engraving. Similar to another Merian map of Paris (already FP), but the border, the captions and the colouring are different. The Merians, their workshop and colleagues often created such variants of engravings, IMHO it’s good to feature both of them. --Aristeas (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for nominating. — Băng Tỏa 11:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 09:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Europe

File:Winter auf dem Melpertser Rasenberg.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2021 at 14:42:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info Winter in the Long Rhön with distant view to the Thuringian Forest. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 16:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A. C. Santacruz (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - It may be a VI (and it looks like it will pass FPC), but I have trouble finding the "wow" in the subject and composition, sorry. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1/320s @ f/16 is about a stop underexposed for snow. The darkness of the sky looks unnatural. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Rhododendrites - there's nothing in the upper right corner to help the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Die Belichtung stimmt nicht: Schnee sollte auf Winterbildern nicht grau, sondern weiß sein. Ich könnte mir vorstellen, dass das noch – sofern dies eine RAW-Aufnahme ist – korrigiert werden kann. Für diesen Fall werde ich mein Votum gerne ändern. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria

File:Indian Farmers' Protest by Ravan Khosa 37.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2021 at 12:16:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting people
Info created by Ravan Khosa - uploaded by & nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Satdeep Gill: Very interesting photo, but as you know “[o]nly two active nominations by the same user […] are allowed” ;–). Do you want to cancel one of the two other nominations or …? No offence, I just want to help. --Aristeas (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aristeas: Oh, I didn't realize that. I will withraw one of those nominations. Thanks for your help. --Satdeep Gill (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The yellowish colour (probably due to evening) is disturbing.--Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 17:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not due to evening. According to Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer, "WARNING: No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac web browsers treat colors randomly." -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice gestures, unfortunately the colors display really weird, due to color profile not embedded. Technical issue -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, Basile Morin, for your analysis! In addition to the absence of a colour profile there is IMHO also some problem with the tone curve – the blacks were missing completely, the tones ended at about 85% abruptly. It’s a pity beause this is a very nice photo. Of course it would be best if the original photographer could provide us a fixed version of the photo, adding a colour profile and also fixing the tone curve. @Satdeep Gill: Can you please try to reach Ravan Khosa? – But often photographers who contribute photos only during some competition or campaign (here Share Your Struggle) are not available for such requests. Therefore I have tried to fix the tone curve (and to add a matching colour profile, too). My edited version is here. At the first glance, it looks too dark, but IMHO it’s just realistic – this is a high contrast photo which needs real shadows. Maybe we could use that file as an alternative? What do you think? (Or somebody else comes up with an even better version, of course ;–). Hope it helps, --Aristeas (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version is fine for me. I would support as alt -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Basile Morin for the feedback and many thanks to @Aristeas for fixing this. I will withdraw this nomination and nominate your version. Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs)

File:Suomen Joutsen 2.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2021 at 11:59:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Sailing ships
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overexposed by about 1/4 to 1/2 stop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No sailings, no wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination —kallerna (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radial engine.gif (delist), delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2021 at 09:30:43

Info This picture is really too small, I wonder why it is still a feature picture ~14 years. (Original nomination)
Delist --Q28 (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: The picture was nominated by Chris 73, produced and uploaded by Duk.--Q28 (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It's still a featured picture because no-one nominated it for delisting until now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above -- Radomianin (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too small, and we're really trying to discourage the use of animated .GIfs anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others. --Peulle (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others. --Cayambe (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Ivar (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others. --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 04:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bestoernesto: Please vote either {{Delist}} or {{Keep}}. Regards --A.Savin 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /--Ivar (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caldeira, isla de Fayal, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-28, DD 25-30 PAN.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2021 at 08:15:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
Info Caldeira Volcano, Faial Island, Azores, Portugal. It's the highest mountain, massive stratovolcano and the largest geomorphological structure that forms the island of Faial. The mountain's highest point, Cabeço Gordo, reaches 1,043 metres (3,422 ft) above sea level. The caldera is 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) wide and 400 metres (1,300 ft) in depth below the crater rim. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, but not really exciting. Would probably have more chance as a VI. Daniel Case (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is strong diference in sharpnes across the photo at least size is big. --Mile (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the dynamism of the uneven light and the uncertain atmosphere created by the clouds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good VI candidate. It's very interesting to look into a dead caldera that's full of plants. However, I think the photo would be more valuable if it could be sharper, which probably would require different weather. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: In my opinion, a 60+ MP image should not be nitpicked for pixel-level sharpness, unless it duplicates an existing FP and is competing primarily on quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about it in comparison to other landscape photos we've been featuring, but note that I haven't voted on this nomination so far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but to this day we regularly feature 15 MP landscapes without anyone complaining about resolution - this photo is absolutely tack-sharp at 50%. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite tack sharp, IMO. Your monitor(s) and eyes may vary, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Daniel and Mile. --Ivar (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. IMHO this is a very atmospheric and interesting panorama, the mixed light and clouds add some magic to it. --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree w/ KoH — Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 04:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Portugal

File:Krzyżanowski, Konrad (1872-1922) - Clouds in Finland - National Museum Kraków.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2021 at 11:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Konrad Krzyżanowski - uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detailed reproduction with a high encyclopedic value. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic piece of art. Thank you for uploading. A. C. Santacruz (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 03:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find this exceptional or fantastic at all. I find it nauseating. Seven Pandas (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tell us more! What's nauseating? Finland? Sky? Landscapes? Let's talk about it! --95.160.159.116 19:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tend to agree with Seven Pandas: Krzyżanowski has better paintings... this one looks like something my 5yo son or daughter would paint (if I had one, lol); But speaking seriously, I don't like the pale colours; they are more vivid in the version to the right, and also here. —capmo (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The photo at the right has to be removed, but the argument about the colors seems like a good argument to me. Why would it not be a good argument? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per argument on colors, pending a possibly persuasive reply. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thats why is always good to have one with the walls, to cover the temperature. I still think this 1st is probably more reliable. --Mile (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Landscapes

Carpocoris purpureipennis fifth instar nymph, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2021 at 12:07:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Top view
Bottom view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Pentatomidae_(Shield/stink_bugs)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😮--Co mmon ists 18:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 19:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light, on both images -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 09:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 18:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Pentatomidae_(Shield/stink_bugs)

File:Leidschendam, de Molendriegang RM25724-6 vanaf de Stompwijkseweg IMG 9984 2021-08-03 11.04.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2021 at 19:17:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#The_Netherlands
Info All by Michielverbeek -- Michielverbeek (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Typically Holland --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bland lighting, and I don't like how the many horizontal lines in the composition are cut off by the canal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark and dull in color, and while the subject is nice I think a photo taken in a sunnier day with better composition would be much much better. A 50% crop focusing on the windmills lends a nicer scene, with some horses, the canal, and the windmill all in view (even if the composition of the crop is still not great it maybe gives you some ideas for a follow-up image, seeing how (I assume) due to your username you are Dutch and live nearby. A. C. Santacruz (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am Dutch, but I am not living nearby the location. IMO black cand white cows fit in the scene, horses not. --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate! Hopefully you can find similar locations tho. I'd at least encourage you to keep uploading to Commons! Even if not FP level, quality images are always good :D A. C. Santacruz (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a good photo, but it's actually too typical, in the non-special sense, as stated above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of detail, light conditions were not favorable. --Ivar (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 05:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Water-Moon Avalokitesvara (Freer Gallery of Art).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2021 at 14:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Buddhism
Info created by unidentified Goryeo-Dynasty artist - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 14:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 14:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is so dark and pale in the original? The file would also benefit from more detailed description. --Andrei (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew J.Kurbiko: Freer Gallery provides bright version but this darker version seems to be original. If the original is colorful, there is no reason for distribution of darker version. This perspective fits better with other images in Category:Water-Moon_Avalokiteshvara.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 07:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colors can degrade over time, especially 1,000 years. It's debatable whether the higher encyclopedic value is a faithful rendition of the artwork in its current state or one that's closer to the original artist's intention. Buidhe (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 05:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imambara inside the Residency-Lucknow-Uttar Pradesh-DSC 0001.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2021 at 06:03:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#India
Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Soft all-around, overexposed portions, distracting wires in front. Also leaning in, which should be corrected unless intentionally exaggerated for artistic effect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support OK on the wires, but I'm supporting this in view of the discussion on the talk page about the difference between Commons FPC and other nomination pages. It's really not that soft and I don't see any obvious overexposure, but I feel the somewhat worn monumental space so much that I can practically smell it, and I think the non-perspective-corrected composition is fine and might be less interesting if it were perspective-corrected. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the uncorrected perspective disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per ikan — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:34, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dey.sandip (talk • contribs)

File:Common darter (Sympetrum striolatum) female.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2021 at 22:43:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info One FP of female and one of mating. Focus stack of 20 images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Peulle (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice picture. (Small stacking error?) wing on the right.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Focus stacking is like taking down the Christmas decorations. However hard you look, there is always something left which others spot right away. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Second Beach Olympic June 2018 008.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2021 at 01:23:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#Washington
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment imo lifting the shadows would make it better. --Ivar (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iifar and Daniel Case: Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:20, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the combination of the soft, horizontal/slightly diagonal lines of the waves with the sharp, “bumpy” vertical structures of the rocks and trees. --Aristeas (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like it is leaning to the right but that is probably an optical illusion.--Ermell (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the edited version: Atmospheric photo of an interesting place. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I keep coming back to this one to give it another try, but the composition just doesn't work for me, sorry. The main thing for me is the stacks just seem squished at the top of the frame, with the focus on the waves in front of it (which are nice, but not particularly unusual). The positions of the islands in the frame create a helpful slope via their relative size, but apart from the light on the left island, I don't find them particularly appealing. I don't know the spot, but I wonder what a wider composition would look like, and/or one with more sky, and/or a different perspective on the stacks... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites: I do have a wider version, File:Second Beach Olympic June 2018 009.jpg. I was struggling to decide which one to nominate, but I polled a few of my friends and a majority preferred 008. IMO the advantage of 008 is the more prominent foam in the waves, while the advantage of 009 is the two stones in the lower right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfavorable light situation, too much dark shadow. --Milseburg (talk) 12:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/United States#Washington

File:Ada Bridge pylon (Sava river, Belgrade).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2021 at 10:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Other
Info Pylon of Ada Bridge, Sava river in Belgrade. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking! -- Radomianin (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really eye-catching with the B&W. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. --Aristeas (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terrific, and definitely not a usual type of nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support— Sadopaul 💬 📁 23:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely outstanding! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support simply great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes! --XRay 💬 12:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support There are some white dust spots which can easily be cloned out --Llez (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think they're stars and shouldn't be cloned out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Llez stars. They add more than bother. --Mile (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the information --Llez (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support As noted, stands out when scrolling through the page. I thought it was some sort of function plot done on a computer, at first. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 11:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural_elements#Other

File:Madagascar stonechat (Saxicola sibilla) male.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2021 at 08:40:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Muscicapidae (Old World Flycatchers)
Info A small bird endemic to Madagascar. No FPs. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mile (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. (Maybe a little bit too much sharpening?) --Aristeas (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice background -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Muscicapidae (Old World Flycatchers)

File:When Depew goes to the Senate by Homer Davenport (cropped).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2021 at 10:26:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by Homer Davenport - uploaded by INS Pirat - nominated by Sahaib3005 -- Sahaib3005 (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sahaib3005 (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't believe this work has either historic, artistic, or illustrative merit on its own. Seems like an average political cartoon.A. C. Santacruz (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Judging purely from the digitization (And I do think this would be better as a transparent .PNG). Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to me and has a message that's still very relevant today. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 04:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 09:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nottuln, Oldtimermuseum, Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire 346 -- 2021 -- 4484 (bw).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2021 at 13:46:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 13:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 13:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Unfortunately, the hood ornament is blurred. Regardless of this, motif and image composition are very good. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination You're right. Too much for FP ... Thank you. --XRay 💬 08:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
💬 I would supoprt it if it would be in focus. I did not know about this firm, and their logo is very nice. Something old Sphinga, with two rear tail lights beside. --Mile (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PetarM: I've another view and this one is shaper: File:Nottuln, Oldtimermuseum, Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire 346 -- 2021 -- 4483 (bw).jpg. I'm not sure about a nomination. --XRay 💬 13:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
💬 i like 1st option much more, second hide side details. But i miss more sharpnes. I know what happen when shoting (silver) metal, but i stil think it could be beter than this. I would leave compo as it is. --Mile (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay 💬 08:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lüdinghausen, Burg Kakesbeck -- 2021 -- 8860.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2021 at 10:39:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 10:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 10:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting mood. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice mood, but the composition is a bit busy, with the foreground plants interfering with the reflection. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 05:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the light. --Aristeas (talk) 06:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support LGTM. SHB2000 (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany

File:Mitsubishi Ki-21 under attack on airfield.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2021 at 23:21:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1950
Info created by w:USAF - uploaded by Cobatfor - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 23:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 23:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice timing so the composition seems brilliant.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 02:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality isn't great for a wwii photo. There's a weird border at left, watermark in the bottom left corner, sharpness is underwhelming, and the aircraft is cut off at bottom. I'm willing to excuse a lot for historically valuable photographs but this isn't FP in my opinion. Buidhe (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not large, problem at the side, very contrasted, poor focus. Overall not special enough to FP -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like a valuable image, so maybe a COM:VIC nomination would be appropriate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abtei Seckau Basilika Kreuzigungsgruppe 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2021 at 08:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_indoors
Info Romanesque crucifixion group at Seckau Basilica, Styria, Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent to me. Oddly, for a crucifixion group, it's quite relaxing to look at. I assume the Virgin Mary is on the left, but if you know who's on the right, it could be good to mention in your file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Normally in three-person crucifixion groups (Stabat Mater) the one person below Christ is his mother and the other one is “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, because St John’s Gosple states: “When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home” (John 19:26–27). This disciple is traditionally identified with John the Apostle, so probably this sculpture shows John the Apostle, too. --Aristeas (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

InfoVery right, I added this and some more information to the image description --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light. Background Window Seems a bit overexposed.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very expressive crucifixion sculpture, emphasized by the good light. --Aristeas (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spartanic photo. --Mile (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly I had seen the photo but had not considered it, but reading the comments I got curious and opened it and wow....the light behind gives a fantastic aura....--Co mmon ists 20:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Works as an abstraction too. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Statues_indoors

File:Church of the Saviour, Beijing.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2021 at 06:02:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#China
Info created by ZhengZhou - uploaded by ZhengZhou - nominated by ZhengZhou -- ZhengZhou (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ZhengZhou (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting motif and welcome to FPC! But can you explain why you think this is one of the very best photos on Commons? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure. This is a clear image of the church, a rare nexus connecting catholic religion (western culture) and the Chinese, on a nice day. You can see two beautiful Chinese pavilions with yellow tiles (only the emperor's family were allowed to use yellow tiles in China'a feudal eras) in front of the magnificent Gothic architecture. I think contrast and fusion of this image are amazing as they reflect the equally interesting history behind this building. ZhengZhou (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might want to study the FPs we have of churches and learn from how the photographers choose a good PoV, frame the shot with adequate foreground and handle perspective distortion. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed. ZhengZhou, your reply addresses why this could be a great motif, not the quality of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ZhengZhou: I'll be kind of honest with you, as an occasional participant of Chinese FPC: the standard here at Commons FPC is much higher than over there, both on artistic merit and technical quality. While it is possible for smartphone photos to become FP, it is quite rare: only 4 out of a total of nearly 15,000. This photo is 12 MP, certainly enough for FP but slightly on the low end, and the detail is not very good by our standards. Also, it would be better if the facade is illuminated by the sunlight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition problem, in my view. Distracting foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective correction needed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: @Charlesjsharp: @King of Hearts: @Basile Morin: @Daniel Case: Your comments are noted but I doubt you will make the same comment if you've visited the church and understood layout of its surroundings. ZhengZhou (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally incorrect. The quality of a photo has nothing to do with whether I've seen the motif before in person or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have visited the Eiffel Tower and understood the layout of its surroundings, nevertheless would never support File:DSF2322 (47547377332).jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Please try to take our constructive comments on board. There is no reason to crop the lions in the foreground - see Google Earth. There is lots of room. Perspective correction is a mater of taste, but you could take feeback from experienced users. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Milseburg (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musk Lorikeet - Goulds Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2021 at 17:00:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Psittacidae (True Parrots)
Info created & uploaded by User:JJ Harrison - nominated by Junior Jumper -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 17:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 17:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP, presumably due to need for ISO 6,400. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tangled mass of branches is too distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice shot but too noisy, distracting context, and the tail partly covered. --Kreuz schnabel 07:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link fixed ;–). Please include also the anchor for the family (or whatever is the most precise section). --Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orphan baby monkey in Liquiçá, Timor Leste (32284436072).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2021 at 17:37:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order : Primates (Primates)
Info created by Bro. Jeffrey Pioquinto, SJ from Dublin, Ireland - uploaded by Capmo - nominated by Capmo —capmo (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —capmo (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 04:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can someone please identify the family (or, even better, the species)? --Aristeas (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to identify it by comparing with others in the galleries of juveniles, but assuming it's an endogenous species, it must be a Macaca fascicularis according to w:List of mammals of East Timor#Order: Primates. —capmo (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! --Aristeas (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noise among other concerns. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Do you think the noise can be fixed somehow? I'm not an expert in image processing. —capmo (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the quality is just not there, very strange shutter speed; noise is not perhaps the right word. And I have no idea why the monkey has been left lying on rocks. Doesn't look good. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I think he's just taking a sunbath. Rocks can become quite warm in East Timor, he must be enjoying it :) —capmo (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lovely lighting, but per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:The artist's face behind his hand.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2021 at 20:59:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by Andrew Krizhanovsky - uploaded by Andrew Krizhanovsky - nominated by Andrew Krizhanovsky -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't think this is one of our best. The composition is haphazard, there are lots of distracting things in the background, and the window is a huge blown-out area. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough. Narrow depth of field. Heavy blown highlights. Metadata missing and there's a distracting line along the right side. Agree with KoH -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ciao • Bestoernesto • ✉ 05:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link refined ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 06:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Peulle (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Cute enough snapshot but not more than that. Nothing extraordinary here. --Kreuz schnabel 18:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also, the subject appears to be a female, so "The artist's face behind his hand" makes no sense. SHB2000 (talk) 05:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fortress wall and Domes of the Cathedrals of the Solovetsky Monastery.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2021 at 05:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Russia
Info all by Александр Байдуков -- Александр Байдуков (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Александр Байдуков (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support though a slightly warmer WB would be better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive and beautiful. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very busy building, but a very historically important one (in both Russian and Soviet history), and works well with the light and the reflection. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now -- a cloning error, or ghost effect, appears to be there at the portal in the middle. Fixable? --A.Savin 12:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Александр Байдуков (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. --A.Savin 11:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Russia

File:Indian Farmers' Protest by Ravan Khosa 37 (ed RE1).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2021 at 11:36:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting people
Info created by Ravan Khosa, edited by Aristeas - uploaded by & nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support An impressive group photo with much atmosphere and emotions. – You may wonder about the colour balance. Before editing the file I have tried many colour profiles, but none of them made the colours “better” (most made them worse). Therefore I assume that the colour profile is correct now and that the yellow/earth tones are an intentional choice of the photographer, and indeed IMHO they look good here. --Aristeas (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks posed to me. And what has happened to cause the green 'lines' in the background? Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These lines were there on the original. Not a bug IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We've not seen the out-of-camera original. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The smiles on two faces, the similar dress code, beards, and turbans. Simple composition and good focus. Striking to me -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support but I'm not sure about the wb, and f/1.8 at 1/2500 is not ideal for a sitting portrait. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and what's wrong with posing for a portrait? I don't get that as a basis for criticism or even discussion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others above. This version is a real improvement. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Power to the people! Yeah! Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Sitting people

File:Lyndon Johnson Richard Nixon 1968.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2021 at 08:50:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1960-1970
Info Lyndon Johnson meets with Presidential candidate Richard Nixon at the White House, July 26, 1968. Taken by en:Yoichi Okamoto - uploaded by Soerfm - nominated by A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting foreground. Also crop too tight on both sides, and the heavy grain doesn't help -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The out-of-focus chair in the foreground splits the image apart. Also, it seems to have a digital color noise pattern which I've never seen on a film photo before. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. --Mile (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The distracting chair in the foreground. --Cayambe (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support That the chair sticks out between them is kind of the point of the story of the photo. Johnson was on his way out; Nixon was coming in. Their politics could barely be more different. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Peulle (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the colour noise is "digital" as King of Hearts claims, but the colour has been altered in the file history, producing a colour shift and more contrast/saturation. I think that alteration of a historic photo is not what Commons should be about. Personally, I would prefer it without the chair, and the point Rhododendrites is making could be served by being at opposite ends of a large empty table. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mimachlamys varia (Variegated Scallop), featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2021 at 04:29:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Right valve, extant
Left valve, extant
Right valve, Pliocene

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Pectinidae
Info The right and the left valve of an extant specimen of Mimachlamys varia (Variegated Scallop), and an about 3 million years old right valve of the same species from the Pliocene of Italy; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice set for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work --Co mmon ists 09:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great resolution and details! It's too bad you don't have the other valve of the Pliocene specimen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 09:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Pectinidae

File:Macaque de Gibraltar (Macaca sylvanus) (Kintzheim, France).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2021 at 09:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Cercopithecidae_(Old_World_Monkeys)
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 09:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 09:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop is unfortunate at bottom, I have taken quickly to freeze the facial expression.
Oppose Crop. This image was recently opposed 4 votes to 2 at QI - why would it pass here? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's more than a detail I understand (not all FPs are necessarily QI). Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per Charlesjsharp --Milseburg (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. The cutoff of the paw makes this less than one of the best photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Gzen92 ^[discuter] 06:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. SHB2000 (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Candidature withdrawn already -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nidarosdom 1857.jpg (delist), delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2021 at 22:21:41

Info Resolution is under 1 MP. Yes, it's an old image, but it doesn't appear that this digital scan has exhausted the full analog resolution of the photograph, so this is far from the best possible version of it. This photograph is not so iconic that we should consider it one of our best from that era, when the resolution is taken into account. (Original nomination, prior delist nom)
Delist -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd note that the original nomination only passed 6-3, which wouldn't pass nowadays, but how big was the original print? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find other copies of this online, but could not find any larger ones. I'm not sure on the physical size but it definitely looks like more detail could be extracted from a better scan since every pixel is pin-sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist That makes sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The reasons given against delisting in the previous delist nom are really outlandish. Of course it’s a very interesting photo of that church, so if we just could get a better reproduction/scan … --Aristeas (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Radomianin (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Peulle (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist .--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /--Ivar (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

File:Motor show in Sokolniki Park Moscow Russia 2019 Mar 31 (4962).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2021 at 20:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
Info Demonstration racing during motor show in Sokolniki Park (Moscow, Russia) on 31 Mar 2019. ArtLine Engineering ArtTech F24 race car. Created and uploaded by LexKurochkin. Nominated by CaptainOlimar42 -- CaptainOlimar42 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- CaptainOlimar42 (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An impressive scene, but IMO it just doesn't translate well to the photo. It is backlit, which is best when used to illuminate translucent objects or make everything go to black as silhouettes. Here the only thing it's illuminating is the water droplets, causing the exposure to be dropped so much to avoid blowing them out that the rest of the image is underexposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. Not well lit. Thus, lack of details-- Basile Morin (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts and Basile -- Radomianin (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support Not too dark IMO, I like the backlit water droplets but in a shot like this you would expect the car to be the focus of the lighting. Moral support because it's an awesome scene Buidhe (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks good, but not for FP. SHB2000 (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:View of San Francisco from Ina Coolbrith Park-01445.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2021 at 22:14:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United_States
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, an uncommon view of SF. The gentle clouds complement the subject well. Note: The verticals are just slightly leaning out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good catch! Thanks for the feedback! I uploaded a new version. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you also added a bit of mangenta tint, not sure if that was your intention since the WB looked fine to me before. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Corrected it. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 07:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A. C. Santacruz (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprised we don't have more takes from this angle, seeing as to how accessible it seems to be. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United_States

File:Ķemeru purva laipa.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2021 at 17:43:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Latvia
Info created and uploaded by Jolanta Liva - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Not technically perfect, but wonderful atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The red dot and the strong CA are extremely disturbing IMO--Ermell (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but perhaps someone could just clone out the [lens flare, presumably] — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, perhaps the CA can be fixed or cropped out. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral after looking again and again at it. With the raw image file, it should be quite simple to fix the CA and that irritating red dot/lens flare, so I do not understand why the photographer did not do it. The duty of a photographer is not only to see great photos and to capture them correctly, but also to do adequate post-processing ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Daniel and Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 09:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ermell. -- Karelj (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel like that capsule-shaped lens flare should be easy to remove, so not removing it makes this not one of the very best photos on the site, regardless of how I feel about anything else having to do with the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support SHB2000 (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @IamMM, Rhododendrites, and Ikan Kekek: I have created a copy without the read dot (for now it is here). Should I upload it over the existing image (because it is just a very small local change) or should I upload it under a new name and offer it as an alternative version here? --Aristeas (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what the protocol is, considering that you're not the photographer and presumably don't have permission to overwrite the photographer's edits. I hope someone clarifies. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know that we generally err on the side of not overwriting for anything that's been through an evaluation process, but IMO it's so small and so obvious that it should be removed that I think it would be best to overwrite. If you want to be extra cautious you could ping not just the uploader but the QI reviewer and Wiki Loves Earth 2019 organizers. :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your input; IMHO Rhododendrites’ assessment is convincing here, because it is really just a very small change. But I am sorry I don’t know which WLE organizers to ping; and I do not want to ping the QI reviewer (because, sorry, the reviewer did not do their job, they did neither recognize the CAs nor the red dot flare). @Jolanta Liva: Dear Jolanta Liva, after a discussion on the FPC page (here) I have taken the liberty to remove a small red dot (lens flare?) from your great photo and to upload it over your original version. We do this just because more than one reviewer required this. I hope that’s OK for your. --Aristeas (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Aristeas. Unfortunately I have a hardware problem and I can't do much graphic work myself. Regarding how to upload a new file, my opinion is that according to the recommendation of COM: OVERWRITE such minor corrections should be overwritten on the previous file. --IamMM (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Latvia

File:Св. Никола Маврово.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2021 at 12:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#North Macedonia
Info created by Daniela Stefanoska - uploaded by Daniela Stefanoska - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm on the fence about this one. On one hand, it's a striking image that caught my attention. I hadn't heard of this place before, so wasn't sure if this was a unique moment (a flood, for example) or whether the building is just always submerged (the latter appears to be true). Certainly different from the typical church exterior shots we get. :) Technically, there are shortcomings. Beyond the pixel peeping stuff like the CA on the steeple, the composition feels too heavy on the right and too empty on the bottom. All in all, I still find myself neutral for the time being... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like this a lot, obviously for the WoW factor, but also for the smaller details like the clouds and the texture of the water. --Kritzolina (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good composition and striking image. (Parenthetically, we're going to have to get used to these kinds of photos in this age of global warming, even though that's not what caused this flooding.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm sorry but for me the fact of the building being partially submerged does not give it enough wow. Maybe with less dull light it might work. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just as a counterpoint, I felt like the somber light helped produce an appropriate mood for the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good points have been made pro and contra, I am undecided. — I have tried to edit the photo a little bit to remove the most prominent CAs and to give it a touch of more light; you can take a look at the result, if you want. Is it better? --Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are some pictures of the same church in summer and winter when it's not submerged. The submergence is caused by the increased water level of Mavrovo Lake as a result of the snowmelt from the surrounding mountains during spring.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull, noisy, colours look oversaturated (e.g. in the roofing tiles), and I think a crop with less empty foreground (suggestion added to nomination page) would be much more impressive. --Kreuz schnabel 08:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Read the naysayers, I think precisely the opposite....good job --Co mmon ists 11:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#North Macedonia

File:Holy Cross church in Rottweil (9).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2021 at 15:32:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slightly asymmetrical, with more on the right than the left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting and composition --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel spoiled by the number of more elaborate church interiors we've considered at FPC, but the clean lines and the light, colors, textures and composition make this an FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Băng Tỏa 22:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany

File:Indian Farmers' Protest by Ravan Khosa 45.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2021 at 15:52:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Ravan Khosa - uploaded by Satdeep Gill - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good portrait but the eyes should be sharp.--Ermell (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF shallow. The nose is in focus but the eyes and fingers aren't. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition. The face, beard and one of the eyes are in focus. Sometimes we can't have it all... —capmo (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My frustration with FPC when it comes to pictures of protests/social movements is well documented at this point. Typically, the conditions at an event like a demonstration aren't compatible with traditional notions of technical photography applied, on average, here. This nomination is interesting in that it says it's from the Indian farmers' protests, but it seems removed from any protest activity -- more of a portrait studio set up to take pictures of protesters. Because it's just a person on black background, the picture doesn't tell a story of the protest. It's a portrait of a farmer. That said, while personally I wish this were more visually contextualized, I'm still going to Support as a good portrait (though I'd probably cut off maybe 20% of the black space at the top). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It must be a whole lot easier to get the F number right and use much higher ISO on the R6 body (to make sure the eyes are in focus) than in one of your wildlife shots. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites Thank you for the detailed comment on this. It's totally fine with me, if you can create a cropped version of this portrait. Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Satdeep Gill: Thanks, but since nobody else has made this recommendation and it now looks like it will be promoted, I wouldn't recommend uploading a new version at this point. I support either way. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The nearer eye is in focus; I don't mind the shallow DoF. This is a very well done portrait, full of emotion on his face. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable picture that is IMO worth a feature, despite the described flaws. Thanks for analysis and explanation by Rhododendrites. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The good composition and the strong expression we can see here for me overcomes the technical not-perfection. --Kritzolina (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Expressive portrait with beautiful soft light/shadows, reminding me of some paintings. --Aristeas (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Focus is on the near eye. Absolutely typical in portrait photography taken from side or an angle for the far eye to be somewhat out of focus. This is not a "flaw". The lighting and colours are very good. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think in this type of portrait, the emotional effect on the viewer is the most important thing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others, this is an excellent portrait. --El Grafo (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the difference in focus between the eyes is a metaphor for this man's situation, that drew him top protest. Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 02:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please consider adding images like this to the relevant Wiki articles, is my only suggestion. --A. C. Santacruz (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina. — Băng Tỏa 22:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support People photography: when the eye is in focus, the picture is in focus. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Intricate window at Humayun's Tomb, Delhi.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2021 at 15:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements
Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent composition and lighting, but please fix tilt/perspective. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...and reduce the chroma noise --Poco a poco (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dey.sandip: Could you have a look? It should be rather easy to fix the issues mentioned here, and I would like to vote for your photo – when these issues have been fixed ;–). (And if you need some help with editing the photo, feel free to ask – there are many helpful people around here!) --Aristeas (talk) 06:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aristeas: Hi, currently I don't have the means to edit the image to fix the issues, however if you want to make an edited version, you are certainly welcome ! Please go ahead, and upload a new version. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dey.sandip: Hi, thank you very much for your nice offer! Unfortunately, I am very busy right now, too, and in addition I have no experience with editing Nikon’s raw image files. Maybe somebody else with more experience could help out here? Best --Aristeas (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake of Fusine.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2021 at 18:43:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 18:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 18:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The right corner is missing. Instead of trying to fill it in Photoshop, I would just crop the top, since compositionally there is too much sky anyways. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ups 😝...sorry. Better? Thank you --Co mmon ists 20:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, tranquil scene, though perhaps a little bit oversharpened. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The thumbnail didn't get my attention, but when I zoomed in, wow! We can see the fish in the foreground as well as all those people in the background that I wasn't even aware of. —capmo (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Capmo. Overall a very nice panorama. --Aristeas (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Per King. a little over-processed.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Even if I weren't bothered by the unnatural appearance that results from the oversharpening, this is not among the best images of this kind of scene. The thin clouds do the sky no favors, and the landscape across the lake is unremarkable to me—I live near where I can take pictures of views like this (and I don't consider that image FP-level). It's possible there might be something with wow of this lake, but this isn't it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts,Famberhorst Daniel Case I lowered the sharpness...... for the rest personal opinions, this is considered one of the most beautiful alpine lakes in Europe. Greetings--Co mmon ists 18:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quality is significantly improved, thanks. Any particular reason why you cropped off the bottom of the image (esp. the reflection of the top of the hill)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts You're right, I'm sorry, I cut too much. I've uploaded another one. Sorry again. --Co mmon ists 20:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not a special composition to me. Daniel Case, I think your composition is FP-level. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that special in terms of composition, and technical shortcomings (some blurry areas from stitching, looking like doubled contours). --Kreuz schnabel 08:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Leave a note please.. --Co mmon ists 08:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two worst areas annotated on the nomination page. --Kreuz schnabel 14:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks --Co mmon ists 14:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per capmo. --CaptainOlimar42 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. -- Karelj (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Italy

Info Demoted/delisted to not featured per this and that discussion. --A.Savin 18:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergeralm im Sommer 04.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2021 at 06:31:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Tyrol
Info all by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. What's the blue thing? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The blue thing is part of the artificial snow production stuff. I don't fully understand it, but I think water gets pumped out of the reservoir and distributed through this thing. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a lovely scene, but considering the resolution, I don't think the level of sharpness is good enough for it to be called one of the finest landscape photos on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a very reasonable point of view. I'll think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thought about it and not changing my mind. I love the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support IMHO a beautiful panorama with very peaceful mood. (Disclosure: I am perhaps somewhat biased because I have edited this picture a little bit for QI ;–). But I would not have done so if I would not think that this is a beautiful photo.) --Aristeas (talk) 17:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, it's good enough.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm trying to understand what are those horizontal lines in the mountain right above the house. It can't be terraces, or can it? —capmo (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Protection against avalanches and / or mudslides. --Kritzolina (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's going on with those lines on that one peak? (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: You put the note on the wrong peak. See my comment above and Kritzolina's reply. —capmo (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's not some processing artifact then. Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The information that this is in Tyrol, Austria, should be added to the image description, and a geocode should be added --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for the suggestion! --Aristeas (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#Austria

File:Pez ballesta (Balistes capriscus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-23, DD 24.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2021 at 10:30:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order_:_Tetraodontiformes
Info 40 centimetres (16 in) long Grey triggerfish (Balistes capriscus), Arrábida National Park, Portugal. The species is native to shallow parts of the western Atlantic from Nova Scotia to Argentina and also the eastern Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea and off Angola on the west coast of Africa. The grey triggerfish is a medium-sized fish that can grow to 60 cm (24 in), but a more common length is 44 cm (17 in). Locomotion in the grey triggerfish is by means of undulations of the dorsal fins. If threatened, the fish can work its way into a protective crevice and wedge itself in place by erecting its front dorsal spine. It is difficult to dislodge from this position. The second spine is connected to the first and when it is depressed, it triggers the unlocking of the first spine. The grey triggerfish feeds on bottom-dwelling invertebrates such as shrimps, crabs, molluscs, sea urchins, sand dollars, starfish and sea cucumbers. Note: we have no FP of this family of fish. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice shot. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like good sharpness and detail for an underwater shot, also good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 12:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the cool colors. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Order_:_Tetraodontiformes

File:Isdera Autobahnkurier Classic-Gala 2021 1X7A0228.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2021 at 20:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info created by Alexander-93 - uploaded by Alexander-93 - nominated by Alexander-93 -- Alexander-93 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexander-93 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything is right for me. The color of the car goes well with the color of the building in the background. --Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very nice car, but the photograph itself is not too interesting (midday lighting, average composition). Not wowed, sorry. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose True, nice car but background is distracting. --Mile (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King --IamMM (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 07:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question The crop looks a bit tight to me, can you expand it on both sides? Poco a poco (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uploaded a new version with a small expansion.--Alexander-93 (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it very much. Car is appealing enough that the background doesn't distract me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. Elegant background, appropriate for the car. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --A. C. Santacruz (talk) 13:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 15:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing cut off lamp and shadow. --Ermell (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles

File:Maharloo Lake, Iran ESA23463799.jpeg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2021 at 15:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Satellite_images#Asia
Info created by European Space Agency - uploaded by OptimusPrimeBot - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 15:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 15:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support vip (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either it has some horrible pollutants (mine runoff?) or it's the world's only tea lake. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The color of the lake is due to the presence of Dunaliella salina in the water. IamMM (talk) 04:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite_images#Asia

File:Trifolium montanum - Niitvälja.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2021 at 15:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Fabaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this as sharp as usual? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support SHB2000 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 18:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:05, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Fabaceae

File:Helenium 'El Dorado'. Bloeiwijze. 18-07-2021. (d.j.b).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2021 at 04:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Flower of a Helenium 'El Dorado' in a misty early morning. Focus stack of 25 photos. Good butterfly and insect plant.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hot pixels below the flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. correction. Thank you for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful! --Aristeas (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, just beautiful! -- Radomianin (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support trés bien! SHB2000 (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I marked two minor stacking errors which should be corrected. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see any markings.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to put them on the nomination page. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see your comments.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Purge cache perhaps? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seen and improved. Thank you for your comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 21:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae

File:Brown hairstreak (Thecla betulae) female 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2021 at 16:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lycaenidae (Blues, coppers and hairstreaks)
Info One of the more elusive British butterflies. Size with wings closed: about 20mm. Focus stack of 5 images. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support SHB2000 (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot of a tiny creature. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lycaenidae (Blues, coppers and hairstreaks)

File:Paula Modersohn-Becker - Self-portrait with hat and veil - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2021 at 19:47:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings
Info created by Paula Modersohn-Becker - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable contribution. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historically important painter, great resolution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan SHB2000 (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 06:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:55, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings

File:Forum (Pompeii) and the Vesuvio.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2021 at 09:42:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 09:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 09:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted to the right, and WB just a little too blue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better King of Hearts? Thank you --Co mmon ists 20:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better. Though the slightly diagonal edge on the lower left is still a bit distracting, being so close to the bottom of the frame. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Now King of Hearts? Thank you--Co mmon ists 07:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, but still some noise and dust spots in the sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now? King of Hearts? Thank you --Co mmon ists 12:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose This is very well-done, and would be a cinch for inclusion in a travel brochure. But for me it just doesn't show Pompeii in a way we haven't seen it before. Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inspiration4 Launch (210915-F-CG053-1003).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2021 at 12:15:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Others
Info created by Staff Sgt. JT Armstrong - uploaded by BugWarp - nominated by MarioJump83 -- Mario Jump 83! 12:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mario Jump 83! 12:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --BugWarp (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are a lot of dust spots. This might be under Astrophotography program - maybe, but i dont resolve between many burned pixles, stars and dead pixles and some whith blurred track. Above all uncalibrated color space. All could be corrected, to become FP. Otherwise scenic view. --Mile (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Stars make traces at this exposure time. So, every sharp dot here is a hot pixel. The dark spots are dust on the sensor. Altogether too many for me. --Kreuz schnabel 08:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors don't display well on my screen. Also, heavy blacks, the image is too contrasted. Buildings leaning in -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly has wow, but the building on the right looks odd and I don't love the red lens flare. I'm also seeing numerous dust spots, as mentioned by Mile above, and they tip my vote to opposing. ~~Good for a VIC nom if nothing else.~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The image is literally "lying" about the launch angle. Get the verticals straight (at the further expense of quality), and presto! it’s going off vertically. --Kreuz schnabel 08:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. I rescind my comment about VIC. Your version should be the nominee there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Wow factor is enough for me to ignore the technical shortcomings, but the scientific misunderstanding it offers from launch angle is unpleasant. --IamMM (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending straightening the trajectory out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bodion (Symphodus roissali) construyendo su nido, Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-23, DD 13.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2021 at 13:31:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Labridae_(Wrasses)
Info Male 12 cm (4.7 in)-long five-spotted wrasse (Symphodus roissali) finalizing his nest during breeding season (typically from April to July), which will be offered to females so that they can spawn in there, Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. This species of wrasse are native to the eastern Atlantic Ocean from the Bay of Biscay to Morocco and through the coastal waters of the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea. It inhabits rocky areas usually within beds of at depths from up to 1 to 30 m (3.3 to 98.4 ft). It can reach 17 cm (6.7 in) in standard length, though usually not more than 12 cm (4.7 in) and feeds on molluscs, bivalves, gastropods, shrimps, sea-urchins and hydroids. If the male finds a female spawing in the nest he will then keep watch until the eclosion. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. In this discussion, it has been decided to strike out all his votes. --Aristeas (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like the fish to play a more important role in the picture. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not in this one, I guess. To me the highlight here is rather the nest as an gift to a female, and the story behind the image, than the male fish itself. I have captured this fish looking for algae for the nest, without the nest on the picture and I don't thing it's interesting enough for FP but, it's a matter of taste. --Poco a poco (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't decided whether or how I might vote here, but your file description is so helpful, I hope you include all that information in Spanish, too, and regardless of the outcome of this nomination, this looks like a valuable photo for COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am impressed by the story of that fish building a nest and the photo shows that perfectly. --Aristeas (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like the fish to be sharper, but Support per Aristeas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Crop at left may have been unavoidable but it is nevertheless disturbing. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case: Along with some sharpening (wrasee)/cloning I've included a bit more image on the left. No sure if that's what you were asking for. I didn't crop the nest for fun, I just didn't want to show to much of the neighbouring sea urchin Poco a poco (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Labridae_(Wrasses)

Updated results:

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diodon hystrix smiling.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2021 at 19:13:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
Info created by User:Di (they-them) - uploaded by User:Di (they-them) - nominated by User:Di (they-them) -- Di (they-them) (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Di (they-them) (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not smiling. Incorrect file name and category. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: IMO "smiling" has multiple meanings: 1) contorting one's mouth in a way that gently slopes up on the sides; 2) contorting one's mouth in order to express happiness. I don't know as much about biology as you, so I cannot evaluate the veracity of 2), but 1) clearly looks correct to me. After all, who are you to say that a whale is not a fish? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? Come on. It's not April 1, is it? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm exaggerating a bit: taxonomic classification is not the perfect analogy, as that is an area where we have decided to go with the strict scientific definition. However, a "smile" does not have a formal, consistently applied scientific definition and should be understood as a subjective descriptor of the appearance of a facial expression. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"April 1" -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sahaib3005 (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Purple fringing all around and glass reflection near the eye. No metadata and no location -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin, hard to fix, but I'd strike my vote if you manage it. Poco a poco (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hadn't seen the reflection. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides the reflection too many scratches of the aquarium pane --Llez (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile and Llez. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marktplatz 53 in Lauf an der Pegnitz (2).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2021 at 09:12:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support SHB2000 (talk) 04:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I have trouble finding the "wow" here. Perhaps there is historical significance in the building which would justify VI, but the subject is a chain eyeglasses store in a marketplace? Not sure about the vertical composition, with lots of foreground and cut off trees (normally not all that big of a deal, but they're the most colorful things in the frame). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture of the evening mood in a small town in germany. Greetings --Dirtsc (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Rhododendrites. In addition, a slight halo at the gable is probably caused by the use of the Shadow/Highlight correction. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites. The composition doesn't work very well for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Rhododendrites Poco a poco (talk) 20:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of Saint Sava (Belgrade, Serbia).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2021 at 07:31:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Serbia
Info Church of Saint Sava (Belgrade, Serbia) with the monument to Karađorđe. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The hill blocks a lot of the church. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Not in this case. Other is church on its own. But i am bored by central-central in the middle shots. Some painter would never draw that. Have some taste. --Mile (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose My taste does not have to align with yours. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like your composition and the juxtaposition of the modern sculpture and traditional (though also modern) church. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it Seven Pandas (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this composition might work better if it were daytime, but as it is the effect doesn't work for me Buidhe (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I like the juxtaposition, but wish HDR were used as there are some small portions of the facade which are blown out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it --Co mmon ists 12:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support SHB2000 (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH and not sure in which type of connection those 2 elements (the church and a revolutionary) are supposed to be. Poco a poco (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Serbia

File:EFE CM-112 Juan Pablo II - Concepción.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2021 at 12:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated Ivar (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kabelleger: Very nice but just underexposed by a hair. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've uploaded a new version which should be a bit better. SHIFT+Reload may be necessary to see the changes. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice composition. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support SHB2000 (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Smiling meerkat.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2021 at 12:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Herpestidae (Mongooses)
Info All by me. -- MSN12102001 (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MSN12102001 (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image could be submitted to Quality Images which is the first level for image assessment on Commons. I fear it would struggle there. Once you have 'support' votes on some images, then have a look at the composition and technical quality of successful nominations here. And it may look like it, but meerkats do not smile. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MSN12102001, and thanks for nominating this picture here. It's definitely a cute picture, but as Charles says it's probably not up to standards for this process ("Featured Picture"). We have several processes which recognize high-quality content. The other two main ones are valued image (which is about the best image in a particular category/scope), and quality image (for good technical quality). Featured Pictures typically requires good technical quality, some sort of educational content (interpreted very loosely), and a "wow!" factor. That is, they're the best images we have here on Commons. You can get a sense for what pictures of meerkats and related animals get promoted through this gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Herpestidae_(Mongooses). To learn more about nominating for quality image, see COM:QIC. If an image doesn't get promoted there, ask the reviewer for feedback. Hopefully people who go through these processes become better photographers! — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice thumbnail but at full size the head is out of focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. SHB2000 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tradisi Parebut Seeng Bogor.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2021 at 11:14:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual_sports
Info created by RaiyaniM - uploaded by RaiyaniM - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One fighter is blurred and there are numerous technical issues. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are some technical issues, but for a [presumably?] action shot, the sharpness of the foreground person is good and the composition is good. I just wish the other guy wasn't the one looking at the camera. I'm on the fence about this. The main thing that's throwing me off, though, is the circle taking a piece out of the head of the man on the right. It looks like a stray clone stamp? Having trouble explaining it otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The circle on the man's head in the front seems to be a cloning error. I would not have FPC'ed such an image with two people being the main event and one blurred out in the background - maybe if the one in the back was sharp as he's looking to the camera. But what disturbes me the most is the over-sharpening without masking out unsharp areas. Loads of ugly halos around contrasting edges.--Granada (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too busy. If it were just the guy in the foreground ... Plus the noted technical issues. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the circle on the guy's head were fixed, I would support this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wahnfried house in Bayreuth (5).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2021 at 08:53:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 08:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the bit on the right is disturbing. SHB2000 (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the uncertain, twilight-like light; for me it seems to evoke the “Wahn” of Richard Wagner who built this house. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I don't see what's special about this one. It just looks like a good photo of a house. QI, but no real wow factor. --Peulle (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Peulle. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:2 الحداد.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2021 at 16:51:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created by Sofiane mohammed amri - uploaded by Sofiane mohammed amri - nominated by Andrew Krizhanovsky -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Raybans are not suitable eye-protectors. And he's standing on the power cable. Workpiece is not secured to the work table. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: what's that got to do with the quality of the photo? This might be the norm where he lives. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The guidelines state 'our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures'. This image is demonstrating an unsafe workplace putting the young man at risk of serious injury. Algeria had safety at work laws to cover this type of workplace in the 1970s. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Charlesjsharp: Honestly, your arguments are poor reasons to oppose a nomination. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment @Charlesjsharp: taking "'our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures'" and stretching it to cover unsafe work practices is really lame even by your standards. Show me where the rules actually cover unsafe work practices. Your argument here is just another case of you inventing your own rules and applying them in a hypocritical uneven manner. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Seven Pandas, Please stop your personal attacks. I am entitled to oppose any nomination which I believe might encourage people to endanger the lives of others. You don't have to agree with me. I also oppose images showing animal cruelty and that's not in the guidelines. There is nothing in the guidlines that prohibits images showing people breaking the law of the land. I have seen workers lose their eyesight due to carelessness or being denied suitable safety equipment, so I take this very seriously. When you have been in charge of a factory where this type of metalworking is undertaken, you don't break the law. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I am merely stating facts. And thanks for admitting you invent your own rules. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t see anything outstanding here, a straightforward workplace shot of mediocre quality at barely 7 megapixels. I’d have chosen landscape orientation but a square crop could make it a bit more interesting (suggestion added). --Kreuz schnabel 05:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the whole composition: the way he is leaning to the left, with his body parallel to the hardware on the wall behind him. At the same time, the table foots and the blue lever are inclined to the opposite direction, providing equilibrium. The several shades of blue in the picture contrast with the golden details (his hair, glasses frame, gloves, grinding wheel, and the wall behind). And finally, the sparks add some dynamism and tension to it. —capmo (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The spark shower and the man's angle work, but for me the composition is too busy (And I just want to say that if Charles wants to oppose because he finds it morally objectionable to feature an image of a man working in unsafe conditions, he can, just as I oppose any images of someone walking along (or taken standing on) active railroad tracks no matter how good). Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Daniel Case: Since people can invent any rule they want let's just throw out all the rules and make it a free for all, well shoot it's practically a free for all already, which is why I don't upload my own photos. Nominations should be judged by the quality of the photo, that's all. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seven Pandas: People can make any rules themselves for their own !votes ... they just can't attempt to impose it on others. Charles isn't asking the rest of us to !vote his way. I don't ask other people to. And that's OK. Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: I emphatically disagree, which we'll just have to agree on disagreeing. Plus, Charles is a hypocrite, he imposes higher standards on other people's photos than his does his own. Seven Pandas (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seven Pandas: But don't we all? Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are more critical of their own work than others, but for those who do apply stricter standards to other people's, I suspect they're conscious of that and work to make sure it doesn't come through in a forum like this. There's a small number of people who nominate things at FPC that seem to consistently apply different standards to themselves. I'm not saying Charles is one of them, but it certainly happens, and it's ok to be frustrated by that.

As for inventing rules, yes, it's extremely frustrating.. but mainly just when people don't put forth the effort to frame their rule in the context of things that are typically understood as valid reasons to oppose. So, not "oppose because it's unsafe" (I'm uneasy with the idea of Commons nannying its users) but "oppose because while it has some 'wow' it's not actually a valuable illustration of this activity due to x, y, z". I think that sort of framing is much easier to swallow. The value of an image, apart from its technical quality and "wow", is typically understood to be a valid reason for supporting/opposing. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exciting composition. If we ever run it as Picture of the Day, the ways in which the man is in violation of fundamental safety codes should be mentioned, and I would certainly support their being added to the description on the file page, but I don't see that as a reason to oppose a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Capmo and Ikan -- Radomianin (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charlesjsharp. The grinder sparks are very neat but I would be much more impressed and interested by a picture that shows how to do it right. --Trougnouf (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and in particular, reject Charlesjsharp's claim that poor eye protection makes a bad photo. This is how people in many countries (and plenty in the US) do work. We also have Category:Lack of personal protective equipment as a consequence. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quality is okay, Shows something different. I too reject Charles' comments - Undeveloped countries do things their way and that's fine. You'd be surprised what can and does happen in the UK too. Other than perhaps quality issues I see no reason to oppose. –Davey2010^Talk 17:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria is not an undeveloped country. Safety at work legislation was in place many years ago when I worked there in engineering. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay my apologies, Well still we're not here to teach people how to use tools correctly nor do we condone whatever happens in those images. We simply showcase the various images we have here good or bad so without sounding disrespectful to you imho your comments on safety are irrelevant. If people choose to disregard safety then that's up to them. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People_at_work

File:A HC-130J at Patrick Space Force Base, Florida, as the Inspiration4 rocket launches in the background.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2021 at 13:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Propeller_aircraft
Info created by Master Sgt. Kelly Goonan - uploaded & nominated by ToprakM --ToprakM ^✉ 13:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ToprakM ^✉ 13:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing distortion left and right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, ToprakM, why upload this without studying the image? Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's fine to upload, just not to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda cool but I don't think the joint plane with rocket composition works for me. Buidhe (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek and Charlesjsharp. SHB2000 (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Left and right distortion is annoying. I really like this pic anyway :( --IamMM (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-16 engine test.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2021 at 13:14:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Others
Info created by Senior Airman Kevin Long - uploaded & nominated by ToprakM --ToprakM ^✉ 13:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --ToprakM ^✉ 13:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks really cool, but the actual engine is out of focus.--Peulle (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Peulle. As much as I like the idea of what looks like a test of the Enterprise's phaser banks being a featured image, the engine is not only unsharp but noisy (and not just in real life ). Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opole Village Museum - Nowe Karmonki.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2021 at 14:06:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've no words to describe this. SHB2000 (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful winter image. First I thought the contrast was a bit hight, but that’s just realistic, of course, on a sunny winter day. --Aristeas (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 20:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland

File:2021-07-25 Motorsport, IDM, 86. Internationales Schleizer Dreieckrennen 1DX 8518 by Stepro.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2021 at 22:54:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Motorsports
Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Stepro (I shoot people and sometimes cut off their heads.) 22:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stepro (I shoot people and sometimes cut off their heads.) 22:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Granada (talk) 06:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --GRDN711 (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Comment When I evaluated this image the first time, I breezed right by the added statement in the Username but feel in retrospect that it is a part of the nomination that I missed and a clear statement by the photographer. I am changing my vote to Neutral , on the way to oppose as I agree with Charles that the username is offensive in terms of Wikipedia’s UserName policy and not in the spirit of this Commons FP forum.

@Stepro: – when you ran this image for QI, there was no added statement about shooting people. Why here? Why now? What’s up? --GRDN711 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GRDN711: Charles started a discussion on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Stepro, and like Marcus I don't think that FPC is the right place to discuss user signatures. --Stepro (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepro: You brought your signature statement to this forum and could easily have corrected any misconceptions. I live in a country with many more guns than people. There are mass shootings (4 or more people about once every two or three days). Unfortunately it has affected my sensitivities on this issue (so many guns and no one feels safe...). I am going to assume you were exercising your sense of humor and the statement says that you are a photographic shooter (a term rarely used these days) who occasionally misses the head but images the body... Give me a day to further consider your nomination.--GRDN711 (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it on my talk page, there is a discussion on ANU, I changed my signature back - and that's all I'm going to write here on this subject. I will not continue to support the abuse of FPC as the third place for it. Vote like you want to. --Stepro (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GRDN711: please vote only once -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin: Think its done - voted support, then neutral and now a final single Support vote. Thank you --GRDN711 (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find your signature very offensive Stepro. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- He has a discussion page. Do you really think, this depends to this place here? -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I do. If a user chooses to have an offensive signature, I would rather they stayed away from FPC. Wikipedia user name policy states that 'Usernames that are likely to offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible; e.g. by containing profanities or referencing controversies' are not acceptable. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good shot, more of them please :) -- Radomianin (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sport :-) Basile Morin (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even the rich mix of colours on the driver and the engine is fun, giving a great contrast to the clean grey background. --Aristeas (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine Poco a poco (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 11:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Motorsports

File:Puppy de Jeff Koons -- 2021 -- Bilbao, España.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2021 at 17:31:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures outdoors
Info all by Señor Aluminio (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Señor Aluminio (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely we should have the whole artwork? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I will support, provided that this is specified as a detail in the file descriptions in every language. How about "Head of the Puppy topiary sculpture by Jeff Koons..."? I'd also love for us to be able to feature a photo of the whole topiary sculpture, if a featurable photo can be taken (tricky, with all the people usually around). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it is difficult, almost impossible. I waited for a long time for no one to be there, but finally someone put up a political banner and then there was an event. In "Other versions" I have put a photo so that the entire sculpture can be appreciated. Now the interior of the sculpture will be undergoing renovations for several months. --Señor Aluminio (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I have already specified that it is a detail of the head in the file descriptions in every language. Thanks. --Señor Aluminio (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand the decision to make it a profile of the face, as the surroundings are not particularly photogenic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. --Aristeas (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Somehow I miss that certain something. --XRay 💬 18:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose mid-day sun and empty sky are not ideal. the sharpness is good, but I don't get any wow from the partial sculpture, except the amount of wow that is in any photo of this work. Because Koons' genre is basically mass-appeal spectacle/"proto-Instagram trap", they are among the most photographed sculptures in the world. While I think this one merits the QI/VI tags, I'm just not sure about FP (though I'm clearly in the minority). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. As a general rule, respect for the artist is to show the whole artwork. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral because I share the same opinion as XRay and Rhododendrites. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Sculptures outdoors

File:Wooden Entrance Door, Palácio da Pena.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2021 at 18:05:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Doors
Info created by Y.ssk - uploaded by Y.ssk - nominated by Y.ssk -- Y.ssk (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Y.ssk (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Am I missing something? A door? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What't the problem with it? —capmo (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I like the colours and the geometrical lines, but I'd prefer if the picture had a higher pixel size, capturing more details of the subject. —capmo (talk) 02:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Yes, a door, but a very nice one ;–). A good catch! For a smartphone the quality is very decent. It’s just that ever so slightly exaggerated sharpening/contrast and the tilt at the bottom which make me hesitate to give full support. --Aristeas (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Aristeas! I've dialled back the sharpening and contrast in a new version. Y.ssk (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but just an old door. I can't see anything outstanding. --Milseburg (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Milseburg, it is just a door and I don’t think it should be a featured picture. Sahaib3005 (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image has a noticeable character. I like the color contrasts and the geometric balance; and for a cell phone shot, the quality is okay. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Nice door, but as a composition, it leaves me flat. Likely to be a good VI nomination, regardless of the results of this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 22:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I get the same impression as the other people who said oppose. SHB2000 (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support That worked for me. IMO the door of a historical castle belonging to the middle of the 1800s is a valid subject. the colors are interesting, especially the yellow stripe around it. --IamMM (talk) 07:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should clarify that I agree that a door can be a featurable subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the combination of shapes and lines here. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like the others, I can't see the big wow either. In 2021, I think this kind of subject should have a higher technical quality to be called one of the finest images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting door but no wow in my eyes.--Ermell (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 07:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reluctantly per others citing no wow. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others opponents. -- Karelj (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Cecilia with the Harpsichord.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2021 at 21:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 21:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 21:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, weird colors. Yann (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, the image is also over-sharpened, which can be seen by the prominent texture. If no raw file is available, a selective or manual sharpening would be a solution for the original file. Also the depths and highlights can be improved a bit afterwards. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. SHB2000 (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a good digitization. Too much light reflecting on the canvas. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Western banded snake eagle (Circaetus cinerascens).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2021 at 10:41:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Circaetus
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When you clear noise you often get echo + some "dust spots". --Mile (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

where please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
anoted, some 7-8 boxes. --Mile (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The 'echo' shadows have been removed. The three 'dust spots' were insects, but I've removed them. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The support in which the eagle is found makes the composition ugly, but I fully understand that this is what happens in nature.--Señor Aluminio (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2021

File:Pozov (Postupice) board trailer.jpg, not featured edit

File:Sonnenuhr P1290387.jpg, not featured edit

Little egret fishing edit

File:Piña de mar (Phallusia mammillata), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 72.jpg, featured edit

File:Red-browed Finch - Penrith.jpg, featured edit

File:Red-necked phalarope at JBWR (41244).jpg, featured edit

File:Rambla de Huarea 1.jpg, not featured edit

image:Fly Head Macro.jpg, not featured edit

File:Duisburg, Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord, Torpedowagen -- 2016 -- 1214.jpg, featured edit

File:The Theotokos Glykofilousa (16th century; Богородица Умиљења).jpg, not featured edit

File:Estrella roja del Mediterráneo (Echinaster sepositus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 79.jpg, featured edit

File:Raya mosaico (Raja undulata), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 92-93 PAN.jpg, not featured edit

File:Wallersberg Wacholderhänge-20210530-RM-153338.jpg, featured edit

Cleora cinctaria catepillar, featured edit

File:Gletsjerpad naar de Morteratschgletsjer 12-09-2019. (d.j.b) 37.jpg, not featured edit

File:Dülmen, Fröbelstraße, Mohn am Feldrand -- 2021 -- 9174.jpg, featured edit

Skyscrapers in La Défense, 20 August 2021, not featured edit

File:Bloem van een muurfijnstraal (Erigeron karvinskianus). 13-06-2021. (d.j.b).jpg, featured edit

File:종묘 정전 신실 (2013).jpg, featured edit

Alternative edit

File:Jēkabs Kazaks - Three Old Ladies - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

File:Troodos lizard (Phoenicolacerta troodica).jpg, featured edit

File:Jardin de Kerbonne01.jpg, not featured edit

File:Mekepung.jpg, not featured edit

File:Portrait of Yi Haeung (National Museum of Korea).jpg, featured edit

File:Pulpo común​ (Octopus vulgaris), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 108.jpg, not featured edit

File:Sympetrum flaveolum in Nepal.jpg, featured edit

File:Crataegus arnoldiana in La Jaysinia (6).jpg, not featured edit

File:Hypholoma fasciculare in Haute-Savoie (8).jpg, not featured edit

File:Poseidone di Aligi Sassu - Rignano sull'Arno -.jpg, not featured edit

File:Turdus rufiventris, Rio de Janeiro, RJ.jpg, not featured edit

File:Храм Смоленской иконы Пресвятой Богородицы в Новогорбово ворота.jpg, not featured edit

File:Petasites hybridus inflorescence - Keila.jpg, featured edit

File:Theo van Doesburg - Girl with Ranunculus - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

File:20190428 DFL 1. Bundesliga FCN - FCB DSC 7673.jpg, not featured edit

File:Beech forest Molla, Sweden - 2021.jpg, not featured edit

File:Sepia común (Sepia officinalis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 62.jpg, featured edit

File:Olfen, Dreibogenbrücke -- 2021 -- 8888.jpg, featured edit

File:Painting of Characters on Eight-panel Folding Screen.jpg, featured edit

File:Вид на музей. Городок, Руза, Открытое письмо 1910-е.jpg, not featured edit

File:RENFE 730 Pedralba de la Pradería.jpg, featured edit

File:Second Beach Olympic June 2018 007.jpg, not featured edit

File:Église Sainte-Brigitte (Mittelwihr) (1).jpg, featured edit

File:Joséphine Baker par Jean Chassaing.jpg, featured edit

File:Pope Paul III (Titian - National Museum of Capodimonte).jpg, not featured edit

File:Gletsjerpad naar de Morteratschgletsjer 12-09-2019. (d.j.b) 16.jpg, featured edit

File:Historical stylization — Slavic of the 12-13th centuries, Karoling Club Ruza.jpg, featured edit

File:Carlos María Isidro de Borbón, por Vicente López.jpg, not featured edit

File:Salmonete de fango (Mullus barbatus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 59.jpg, featured edit

File:Exposition universelle - Paris, 1878 by Isidore Laurent Deroy - Gallica.jpg, featured edit

File:Francisco de Goya - Escena de Inquisición - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

File:Pointe de Nyon & Pointe d'Angolon (12).jpg, featured edit

File:Lang Ranch Oakbrook North Ranch Thousand Oaks July 2021 HDR.jpg, not featured edit

File:Traditional farmhouse - Santana 06.jpg, featured edit

File:Boulevard Hotel (Neon sign), Miami Beach.jpg, featured edit

File:Cyprus water frogs (Pelophylax cypriensis).jpg, featured edit

File:Greven, Fuestrup, Dortmund-Ems-Kanal, Alte Fahrt, Sicherheitssperrtor -- 2021 -- 3918.jpg, featured edit

File:Galena - Huallanca, Bologesi, Ancash, Peru.jpg, featured edit

File:Violet dropwing (Trithemis annulata) female Cyprus.jpg, featured edit

File:Flight of Refugees Across Wrecked Bridge in Korea (Original).jpg, featured edit

File:Franeker. Stadhuis. 03-08-2021. (actm) 02.jpg, featured edit

File:Carlo Bossoli Paris Rue Saint Antoine.jpg, featured edit

Marktplatz in Lauf an der Pegnitz edit

File:Gooseneckbarnacles.jpg (delist), not delisted edit

File:Bell Miner 1 - Nepean Weir.jpg, featured edit

File:James Abram Garfield, photo portrait seated.jpg, featured edit

File:Landscape with the Good Samaritan - Rembrandt.jpg, featured edit

File:Cohombro de mar pardo (Holothuria arguinensis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-23, DD 34.jpg, featured edit

File:Deesis with Saints, triptych 18-19 cent.jpg, featured edit

File:La vallata di Poggiorsini vista nel dettaglio.jpg, featured edit

File:Bloemknoppen van Verbesina alternifolia. 07-09-2021. (d.j.b).jpg, featured edit

File:Derveaux & Tavernier, Le plan de la ville, cité, université fauxbourg de Paris - Paris Musées.jpg, featured edit

File:Winter auf dem Melpertser Rasenberg.jpg, featured edit

File:Radial engine.gif (delist), delisted edit

File:Caldeira, isla de Fayal, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-28, DD 25-30 PAN.jpg, featured edit

File:Krzyżanowski, Konrad (1872-1922) - Clouds in Finland - National Museum Kraków.jpg, featured edit

Carpocoris purpureipennis fifth instar nymph, featured edit

File:Leidschendam, de Molendriegang RM25724-6 vanaf de Stompwijkseweg IMG 9984 2021-08-03 11.04.jpg, not featured edit

File:Water-Moon Avalokitesvara (Freer Gallery of Art).jpg, not featured edit

File:Pulpo común (Octopus vulgaris), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 108.jpg, not featured edit