Open main menu

Contents

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Konrad Adenauer by Giuseppe Moro, August 1961.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2019 at 06:26:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hell Gate Bridge (84459)p.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2019 at 05:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info Hell Gate Bridge. On the left is Randall's Island. On the right is Queens, New York City. East River underneath. Created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites talk |  05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hmmm. Not that it matters for this nomination, but my image notes/annotations aren't showing up since uploading a new version. Anyone know why? — Rhododendrites talk |  05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  05:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Dobson Stream by Wharfedale hut with the moon, Mt Oxford area, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 23:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. It's Dobson Stream, quite a tiny stream in the winter landscape of Canterbury, New Zealand. There isn't any snow because this autumn was one of the hottest and driest ever recorded. The moon is hidden behind the clouds, that's why it looks overexposed. -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice and peaceful. -- King of ♠ 01:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:India - Varanasi boy balloon - 2735.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 20:21:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Malva moschata Mitterbach 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 19:23:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mittlerer Weinschwärmer Deilephila elpenor-004.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 15:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hi @Charlesjsharp:, it's actually this species. It's crispy clear showing details barely visible to the naked eye with no artifacts at all. The one you linked is a completely different species. The hawk moths main feature is the head area, particularly the markings shown, how they mimic a snake with fangs. It's face, the clearest part in focus, is usually not noticeable owing to its shape and markings, hence what makes this a great angle, ~ R.T.G 18:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I should apologise, the thing which makes this creature intersting is that it is not really possible to tell what it is if you didn't already know. I should of thought of that when nominating. I invite you to look at the particular species category and take note only of the sort with the short face and the similar coloured markings (European variety). It sort of hides its face under the coloured neck area so this is a unique view of the actual creature beyond its camouflage, ~ R.T.G 18:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually the two species are quite close relatives in the Sphingidae family. Charles (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Relatives maybe, appearance, very different. It's actually an amazing creature to spot out. Where the one you linked has a long snout-like appearance, like an ant-eater, this one has a bunched neck to give it the appearance of a snakes head, and literally looks like a cartoon snake. I mean, it actually looks like that. It's a great picture, from experience. You'd know it immediately. Great poster for a fan of the thing. Perfect. Love it. ~ R.T.G 23:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Main part is not sharp enough --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --DOF too shallow Seven Pandas (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting, but I agree with the above, the depth of field is too shallow. Cmao20 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others--Boothsift 00:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Hip replacement Image 3684-PH.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 15:17:07

  •   Info The new image is of higher spatial resolution and has much better exposure of the bones. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi Mikael. We don't need to delist/replace images -- Commons FP can have more than one featured hip replacement. That said, looking at the category, I think the old FP is not representative of the best such images. I wonder if your new photo would be better nominated as a set, with the before photograph. There's quite a lot of flesh clearly represented, and an IUD, which for some purposes could distract a little from the bone/replacement, but has its own merits too. Is the occupation of the subject relevant -- I'd tend towards minimising possibly identifying information. -- Colin (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree with Colin that you should not delist the old one. Simply nominate the new one and perhaps some other images in the set. It is also great to keep the old for comparison with the new to illustrate the development of X-ray photos over time. Please keep the info about this being a nurse. I suspect you do that to indicate that this is one of "your own" and patients should not have to worry that you'd take just any X-ray images and make them public. This is done in many professions and we also have photos stating "Wikipedian modeling with ...". --Cart (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ALT2: Whole case series. As suggested below. I did get written consent from the person, including mentioning the occupation, so that should not be a significant issue here. Also, I agree the older image may indeed be more appropriate to show a hip prosthesis specifically, since the newer one makes other objects and structures visible. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
edit


X-ray of the hip of a 51 year old nurse with idiopathic avascular necrosis of the left femoral head.

Pre-operative
After hip replacement

File:Moscow Brateevo Floodplain asv2018-08 img4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 14:11:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Victoria crater from HiRise.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 13:27:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done Yann (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing detail! --Franz van Duns (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --KlauRau (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, that's the Opportunity! Great details. Ahmadtalk 18:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Would probably be FP even without the Opportunity rover there. Cmao20 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:22, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Cumbre Nueva - Cloudfall 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2019 at 06:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The very right side is quite blurry and all the trees are leaning. I would suggest to crop that out.--Ermell (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done Thanks --Llez (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support impressive Charles (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Spectacular phenomenon. Looks like a surrealist sea wave -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support much better, thank you. Impressing.--Ermell (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Not the sharpest panorama, overall, but in this case, I don't care. Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support----Fischer.H (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 17:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Fascinating phenomenon but unfortunately the tree that blocks the view spoils it for me. -- B2Belgium (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't really care about some slight flaws, that's an incredible sight. Cmao20 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Empis tesselata male (aka).jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2019 at 16:36:54
 

  •   Info Very small, way below current insect FP standards (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Still a good picture, though. Should we be delisting good pictures because they're small? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Can we just stop with the constant stream of delist nominations please. This isn't our focus. -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep, If size is everything about FP, maybe we should operate a bot to automatically delist all images below 2MP, but IMHO it's not all about size. -- Eatcha (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question did the rules allow smaller images back then? Seven Pandas (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Simply too small unfortunately. -- King of ♠ 04:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep. I see no good reason to delist a good picture just because we no longer promote images of this size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think this is fine--Boothsift 00:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Credit-cards.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2019 at 16:25:43
 

  •   Info Too small, no wow, unsharp and blurred (Original nomination and previous delist nomination)
  •   Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep No reason to delist. These cards are photographed from an angle so I'd expect only some of the cards to be in focus. This is a photograph, not computer generated art. I like a focus stacked photo as much as the next person, but not everything on Commons needs to be focus stacked. This isn't a simple image to photograph, to get the background perfectly white, and I'm certainly not uploading a photo of my bank cards onto Wikipedia. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Colin -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep I'm not sure why we need to delist this one, I wouldn't have nominated it--Boothsift 00:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Forgotten pacifier on a table in Röe gård cafe.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2019 at 09:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others_2
  •   Info Polymer artifact, probably belonging to a young, possibly infant, human, found in a cooking area right outside habitation ID registration 10154001160001 Swedish National Heritage Board. The location of the find outside the main compound suggests it belonged to a visitor and not one of the indigenous habitants, which can explain why it was not retrieved. Significant DNA deposits on the artifact from a single individual, indicates it was a personal item of some importance to the owner. Photographed in situ and left undisturbed at the site.
I may have spent too much time with archeologists… All by me, --Cart (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I hope I've done this right... I'm going to take over this nomination of Cart's photo. I think this is a great photo and worth running full term. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support for both pic and description above --Martin Falbisoner (talk)
  •   Oppose Sorry but not wow, maybe you need take a brake --Wilfredor (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Really? What a thing to say... --Cart (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • You surely mean she should take a photo of a brake, don't you? SCNR )) --A.Savin 12:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Haha! Already done that and the whole bike! Even got an FP there. :-) I think it's only when you become a parent that you realize just how important pacifiers are. :) --Cart (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oops, so I'm too late with the nice idea (or was it Wilfredor? Nevermind) --A.Savin 13:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't work for me. For one thing, the artifact is located outside its natural habitat. ;) --Peulle (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying out the "Abandoned" genre. ;) --Cart (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry Cart, it's a good illustration but I'm not sure I get the wow-factor. Cmao20 (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Changing to   Weak support per Colin's very sensible reasoning; it still doesn't have that much appeal to me but I can see the compositional merit to it. Cmao20 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Just about the only work-of-art on this page. I like the composition, the colourful, sharply focused and very rounded dummy contrasting with the grey weathered wood that is all straight lines. A fine example of the "elements of composition" (see Commons:Photography terms#Composition). In fact, I think I'm going to stick it on that page. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's just a nice picture to look at because the composition is good and the colours are pleasant. Also, it's nice to see good quality photos here at FPC - other than mountains during the sunset, panoramas of glaciers or historical paintings (nothing against them, I'm just saying that I'd like to see more diversification here). --Podzemnik (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Podzemnik and others, diversity is exactly why I make these "odd" nominations. We need really good photo of everything and I prefer to photograph objects in a context with interesting background, rather than sticking them on a clinically white or black backdrop. I can't understand why people find that so provoking, even to the point that some user thinks I've lost it and "need take a brake". That comment will be added to my growing collection of strange things said about my noms. I think I have proved that I can take "normal FPCs" (and my life would be so much easier if I just stuck with the mainstream photos), but for the wide scope of this project I find it more useful to photograph subjects we don't have FPs of. --Cart (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • My guess is the "maybe you need take a brake" comment was a response to your humorous archaeology-parody text (which I very much appreciated). Wilfredor isn't a native English speaker, though improving in that regard in his new home country, so perhaps the advanced-English humour didn't work for him, or perhaps he was trying to respond in kind to your "I may have spent too much time with archeologists" self-deprecation, and that didn't translate either. I wouldn't dwell on it. -- Colin (talk) 09:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree with Colin. IMO just a "forgotten pacifier on a table in Röe gård café" - not that special or aesthetically pleasing. —kallerna (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The level of blur of the background is unpleasant. I don't find the artefact interesting, and the composition is not working with this blurry wall, awkwardly cropped.
Concerning the diversity of the nominations here, I think we feature all kind of images : Animals, Astronomy, Food and drink, Historical, Natural phenomena, Objects, Other lifeforms, People and Places. Today's POTD, for example, is well composed and very artistic : File:Грот_на_мысе_Большой_Атлеш.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes I know, I have sorted many of them into those categories, but the selection is far from as diverse as it could be especially wrt to normal everyday human activities and items. --Cart (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, the selection is just based on a consensus. There's no limitation concerning the various possible nominations as far as I know in the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree, and I hope some of my noms of items like this will encourage other users to photograph what they have around them and not always look to a far off horizon in the setting sun (figuratively speaking). But seeing how such choices are received here at FPC, I'm sorry to say that I think most photographers will be discouraged to try and not risk the discussions I have to face. --Cart (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
That's more about improvement in my opinion. To quote Jim Richardson : “If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff.” -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Jim Richardson didn't take photographs for a repository from which mainly Wikiprojects get their photos. --Cart (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
This picture shows a high level of blur that is extremely distracting and totally unaesthetic, what do you want ? that I support because it's an insignificant object ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
No, your oppose is a totally valid way of expressing what you felt about the photo, it was the second part about diversity that sparked the discussion. Please don't mix them up. --Cart (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
So do you think we should promote weak candidatures just because it's rare to see ordinary QIs nominated here ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
You and some other consider this a weak nom, I and some other consider this a strong candidate. Opinions differ, just like on any other nom. Some like the contrasting dof and surfaces, others don't. Some think white cars are ok, some don't. It's all a matter of taste. --Cart (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, flaws... -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, BTW, there is no wall in this photo, that is the rim of the table, kind of like this. --Cart (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Cart, our selection is most peculiar and this does have consequences on how images get judged. Most of the world's professional-level photography consists of famous or beautiful people doing things, or cultural and social events. Yet that makes up a tiny proportion of our image bank and a negligible proportion of Commoner-taken photography. The photographic areas where FP photographers are inexperienced, such as professional food and portrait photography, also tend to be the areas where reviewers are most critical, and offer the most ridiculous nit-picking rationales for oppose. So while our guidelines do not limit what we promote, there is very much a bias towards safe well-trodden subjects that reviewers are comfortable with, and a disinclination towards the unfamiliar. Just look at the FP category for this: "Objects / other". We don't really know what box to put this in. Many here lack the tools to judge the unfamiliar and I suggest expanding the photographic experience with some books or visiting a gallery. This is a problem for the project, because we lack good photos of everyday things. Many of our nominations get "wow" from the photographer being fortunate enough to be standing in front of something amazing and simply pressing a button on their expensive cameras. Much harder to get "wow" for the craft of photography itself. And it is a problem if it discourages folk. We recently had some food photos that failed that were simply head and shoulders above the sort of image anyone here is taking. A reviewer, who knows nothing about taking such photos, can of course point at our guidelines and complain about blown highlights or focus. And so we continue to fail to attract any professional level food photographers. We have no shortage of church interiors or glaciated mountains.... -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
What a long theory just because no wow -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion did not evolve from the "no wow" that was ok, but from your assertion that the selection of FPs is already diverse enough. I think you realize that but you only wanted a clever last comment, and I suspect one will follow this too. ;-) --Cart (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes of course, lol   -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The Richardson quote is, like many quotes, too simplistic. (Jimbo's "a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" is bullshit when you think about it to any level). It also reflects the experience of a privileged (white, male, western and commissioned by National Geographic) photographer. I really hope, Basile, that you are not for a moment suggesting that Commons FP shouldn't include great photos of mundane subjects. I think, rather, you are just fond of arguing. -- Colin (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment Basile Morin, what on earth are you up to? Your conduct on this nom with moving another user's post and undoing undos are beginning to look like pure disruptions. You are trying my patience. --Cart (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No Cart is not upset, Cart is tired of your too frequent antics on nominations. Just make that last comment you like so much and please stop. --Cart (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Marvelous. Now please everybody keep the chronology as it is. If you want to reply, just write after, respect the queue -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Basile has moved my comment from the location where it made sense, to the top level where it appears I am creating some new topic of conversation. This problem with Basile has been discussed before, with examples, and he doesn't listen. Now he has moved on from simply being argumentative for the sake of it, to being disruptive for the sake of it, so it is time to stop feeding this childish attention-seeking behaviour and unwatch. -- Colin (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It didn't make sense where it was written, for the good reason Cart replied first, and I planned to reply to Cart. Not someone else pushing everyone for imposing their voice through illegitimate ways. There are conventions here, and politeness, above all. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Thanks for taking unordinary pictures of ordinary objects. But I find the top right white corner distracting. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition: table edge distracts. Depth of field is photographer's choice, but I would prefer all of the dummy to be in focus. Charles (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I don't know why I even try, from now on only mainstream nominations since that is all you guys want. --Cart (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Was just about to vote support and noticed at the last second that you withdrew. I like it. Keep up the good work. -- B2Belgium (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Cart, that would be a shame. Even when I don’t support your more creative nominations, I enjoy seeing them here. For me you hit the mark much more often than you miss it, and even if I don’t find any wow in a nomination I appreciate the effort to come up with ideas for creative new compositions. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Cmao20, I know there are those who share your point of view about me and my odd noms, but I have finally grown tired of being the dancing bear around here. Sometimes I have felt like just bellowing "Are you not entertained!?"; so I'll settle for a more normal/quiet life now. --Cart (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I was about to support this nomination. And I really like the way you are. Please don't be discouraged. Warmly, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @B2Belgium, Cmao20, Frank Schulenburg: with Cart's agreement (off-wiki), I'm taking over responsibility for the nomination. Feel free to continue voting. -- Colin (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition and how color is handled. I also think the falloff of sharpness works well for keeping the focus on the main subject of the image. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC) 
  •   Oppose Per Yann sorry--Boothsift 00:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Grande roue de Montréal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2019 at 04:09:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done: thank you for the review; got rid of the blue line. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed. Could also do with a bit of processing to lift the shadows a bit -- the blacks are really crushed. Also I'd trim the far left off to avoid the green object. -- Colin (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done: thank you for the review; cropped, brightened, recovered the shadows. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough for a static shot, no wow. —kallerna (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment This side view of the bridge with these ugly pillars in concrete in the foreground are not particularly successful -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others abive, sorry --Boothsift 00:19, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think I see what you might have seen, yes, but it just doesn't quite come through with all those distractions at the bottom, and although you've been very responsive to all the technical criticisms here the image still has too much unsharpness overall for me, particularly on the left. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Sally Ride (1984).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 18:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Guion Bluford.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 18:11:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • OK, but I don't like the noise in the blue background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Can you highlight an example so I know what your are talking about? I will go over the whole background but I need a definition of noise to understand. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
It's possible that it's an increase in grain, instead. I'd welcome another opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Mute swan cygnets learning in Prospect Park (80222).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 16:25:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes
  •   Info Mute swan cygnets and mother on a duckweed-covered pond in Brooklyn, NY. Created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites talk |  16:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  16:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very eyecatching. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I'd want Mama Swan's beak more visible, but this is close enough. --Cart (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 22:53, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing how smooth and homogeneous this long vegetable carpet is, without disparity around the subjects as if there was no water at all. Very pleasant image with delightful soft light. Great shot -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very cute and sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 09:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basile and Ikan --Aristeas (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A lovely photo. Cmao20 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A relaxing, pleasant photo. Ahmadtalk 20:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 01:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Otherwise very nice, but the crop is imo too tight on the right side. —kallerna (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support love it Olivier LPB (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --KlauRau (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A flock of fluffy cygnets a-swimming in a pond of duckweed. Needs no more. --Franz van Duns (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Megs (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Franz. Daniel Case (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Waaierbuisjeszwam (Polyporus varius) op een dode lijsterbes (Sorbus). Locatie. Natuurterrein De Famberhorst. 08-07-2019. (d.j.b). 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 15:26:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Netherlands # Polyporus varius.
  •   Info Polyporus varius on a dead Sorbus. You hardly see any undamaged mushrooms in July in the Netherlands. This Polyporus varius has a nice wave in his hat. And two small protrusions on the head against the trunk of the dead tree.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is a great composition, the only thing that bother me a little is that unsharp front of the mushroom. So I looked at the other versions to see how they looked and found the near identical number 05 that had a sharp front but the rest unsharp. As I seems to remember, you don't do focus stacked images, but it seems a shame not to combine these two photos to make a stunning and totally sharp image. I hope you will forgive me for making a merge just to see how it looked. If you like it, it is yours to use as you see fit. Here is a link to version 03-05 in my Dropbox. I apologize if you think I did anything wrong here. --Cart (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Info With Famberhorst's permission, I'm adding the focus stacked version here as an "Alt". --Cart (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd like to posess Cart's photoshop magic --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, Martin, you can follow the tips on my talk page.   --Cart (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Cart, but as a southern German the Dutch language is all Greek to me ;) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Martin Falbisoner there's always Google Translate. Seven Pandas (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
which, admittedly, works surprisingly well... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter:. Thank you for helping me save my photo!--Famberhorst (talk) 09:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome. :-) --Cart (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
See below for: Basile Morin (Talk)--Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Drachme en or, Bruttium.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 07:08:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 05:25:01
 

  •   Info I'm pretty sure this was considered excellent when it was nominated back in 2005, but sadly it is no longer on par with the pictures that are promoted today.(Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Boothsift 05:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist - These old delisted FPs will still be listed as former FPs, right? It's good to have a history of what were considered high-quality digital photos at different times, but this definitely is not an FP by today's standards. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan, yes, they have the {{Assessments|featured=2}} and the broken little star, see this example. All their glorious history is clearly visible on the file page. --Cart (talk) 08:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Are they easily found in searches, as opposed to only on the file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Unfortunately per nomination. The composition is great, but the quality sadly not, as was pointed out even in the original nomination in 2005. Cmao20 (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   weak delist I was leaning towards keeping, because while there are many technical shortcomings, the shot is still quite captivating with the dramatic light/composition. What pushed me over is that we have a whole category filled with similar shots. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per nom. --El Grafo (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Per others. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above.--Peulle (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per Rhododendrites. Striking composition, but leaves a lot to be desired technically. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Sea defences South Coast.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 05:12:21
 

  •   Info The composition isn't very interesting and the quality is definitely not on par with what is produced today. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Boothsift 05:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Composition is fairly good, IMO, and I don't think this is a really obvious delist, so I would say keep for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: The composition is a wooden sea defence. There are definitely much better wooden sea defence pictures and it clearly isn't the only wooden sea defence out there. --Boothsift 01:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - That clearly is going to be the result, but my position is that when it's not really obvious, we shouldn't be trolling through all of the old FPs to delist them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: If I were doing this in order of promotion, then this wouldn't be the one I would have nominated. There's a small chance that I might have looked at each one since I skipped three from 2004 and a bunch from 2005. --Boothsift 01:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Even without considering the quality issues I would not have supported this as an FP. It's a decent picture and illustrates the subject well, but it's crying out for something to give the composition a bit more interest or tension. Cmao20 (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per Cmao20 --El Grafo (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Per others. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Not sharp even at 3 MP. -- King of ♠ 00:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist for the technical quality.--Peulle (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Barely passed original nomination. However, I would agree with Ikan the we don't really want to spend our time delisting old photos as focus of our attention. Also please could you link to the Featured Picture page like we do on nominations, so people can compare with other FPs. -- Colin (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Colin: I'm not. I just took a look through the FPs and nominated those that I felt weren't up to standards anymore. --Boothsift 03:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Had possibilities, but this is unsharp and has some CA near the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Basílica de Nuestra Señora de Licheń, Stary Licheń, Polonia, 2016-12-21, DD 39-41 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 03:43:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by and uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 03:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 03:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Seems like FP quality, but isn't there another FP of this church? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed, Ikan Kekek, this one. The subject is the same but the light and the angle pretty different. Poco2 09:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Is it just me or is it tilted? --Cart (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
    You are right, Cart, I applied a 0,2° correction Poco2 09:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice :) thank you Boothsift! Poco2 09:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The light is different to the other FP, and I agree that both can be featured, but I find the composition and angle of the other picture much more compelling and I think Poco was right to nominate that one instead of this one. Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 22:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak to moderate   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good mood. --Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cmao20. —kallerna (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Crane de Saurolophus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 03:06:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sunlight through clouds and view of Ginkaku-ji Temple from above, Kyoto, Japan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2019 at 01:42:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   fixed Cloned out branches in the foreground, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Hiroshige would have loved that --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I can't recall Hiroshige depicting crepuscular rays but I agree with Martin, H-san did a lot of cool weather. --Cart (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Wow, I love this. It's quintessentially Japanese, almost painterly. You have a great eye for composition. Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  17:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Epic. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 22:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A chaotic landscape with a magical sky above it ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 05:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - The sky is a bit blotchy, but the composition and light are so compelling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The rear right of the picture is heavily tilted clockwise. -- Colin (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a top-down view, like File:Khandoba_temple_Pune.jpg POTY finalist and 1st prize of Wiki Loves Monuments 2017. Here the main subject is this natural phenomena of crepuscular rays. Similar discussions : 1, 2. There are perspective distorsions but it is not "tilted" if I check the horizontal roof of the temple at the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, depth and detail! A lush landscape crafted for use by mankind. Tiny humans in the courtyard. Exotic roofing in the foreground. Mist rising from the hillside. Distant hills disappearing into the blue. An impressive sky displaying towering cumulus clouds embossed with a broad fan of sunrays. And all these traits benefit from the excitingly large number of pixels that compose this image. --Franz van Duns (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Persépolis, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 56.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 21:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support I do agree that the light is a bit harsh, but that's probably how it looked. The composition and angle is good, the resolution is high, and it's sharp all over. Overall a strong candidate. Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not the best lighting and washed out sky. -- King of ♠ 22:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
    Martin Falbisoner, King of Hearts, Daniel Case, I've uploaded a new version with the purpose to reduce that harsh light and the washed out sky. Poco2 09:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Neptuul (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support much better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 01:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting subject, but per King of Hearts. —kallerna (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Mercado de Colón, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 07.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 21:20:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:St Katharine Cree Church Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 16:26:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info St Katharine Cree guild church, Leadenhall Street, London, looking east from the organ loft at the west end. Built in 1628, St Katherine Cree is an important example of Jacobean architecture, a time during which few churches were constructed. The stained glass is original to the seventeenth century, as is the spectacular rose window visible in this picture, which was modelled closely on the large rose window in the original St Paul's Cathedral (which was destroyed in the Great Fire of London). Created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question What about camera and lens information ? --Wilfredor (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I suspect some of that information was stripped during the process of stitching the image, but this one is no more lacking in such information than the others I have been nominating recently (for example, this one, which you supported). Indeed, the same is true of the church interiors Diliff nominated himself. Cmao20 (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think Cart is right, yes. Cmao20 (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • So not filled with flour then. :) Well, I suppose if they were, that would create quite a dramatic, if messy, effect at the start of prayer. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I shall suggest it to the vicar   Cmao20 (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Líneas de Nazca, Nazca, Perú, 2015-07-29, DD 49.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 16:20:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Another photo of the Nazca Lines for you, this time the 'Monkey', following the strong reception of the last nomination. Again, high-resolution, sharp, and with excellent quality considering the technical challenges involved. Created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Of course, thank you again, Cmao20! Poco2 17:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Sphinx moth caterpillar (Xylophanes crotonis).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 15:33:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • about 10cm long Charles (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh right, you mentioned that above. I'm undecided, as I'd like more sharpness on the caterpillar. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Tempered support Not as sharp as one would like, but given the conditions I can forgive that. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: unfortunately, the leaf is sharper than the caterpillar. --СССР (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per CCCP.--Peulle (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
  •   Oppose per CCCP. Also your other picture is much better. -- Colin (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Lutte sénégalaise Bercy 2013 - Mame Balla 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 15:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info created & uploaded by Pyb - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain Looks fine in quality terms but it doesn't have any wow for me as I don't really have any interest in this sport. Let's see what others think. Cmao20 (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overly cool light with distracting mix of shadows and even if the sides were cropped in the facial expression isn't sufficiently compelling. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't work for me at all, sorry --Boothsift 01:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 14:18:24
 

  •   Info Featured in 2009. Doesn't seem to me anyways to meet the Featured Picture Criteria anymore. This nomination is especially confusing to me considering this image was nominated and designated the same year. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk 14:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist The composition is a bit messy, and we have so many FPs of Golden Gate Bridge anyway. Cmao20 (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist --Boothsift 05:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Interesting and fairly good quality, not an obvious delist to me, though I wouldn't support it if it were newly nominated for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep - not seeing an obvious reason to delist. some technical shortcomings, but doesn't seem egregious. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep Wouldn't be featured today probably, but the general consensus is to not delist unless there are obvious shortcomings. We could of course have an RfC to explore whether to continue this policy. -- King of ♠ 22:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Wouldn't pass a nomination in 2019, IMO.--Peulle (talk) 06:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Imho, that shouldn't have passed in 2009 either due to compositional issues. --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep "Doesn't seem to me anyways to meet the Featured Picture Criteria anymore." is not a reason to delist. We may have other FPs of this bridge, but the beach is actually the focus of the composition. -- Colin (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Since we have a slew of delist nominations now, it could be helpful to review what the valid reasons to delist are. What do you think about this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Sossusvlei Dune Ripples.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2019 at 05:36:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Namibia
  •   Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are already some awesome featured pictures of dunes in Namibia, but none (at least none I could find) showing dune ripples nicely.
  •   Support -- Domob (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's a nice view and composition, but the pasterisation in the sky is too much for FP I think. Can you try to do something about it? Also, I can see at least 1 dust spot. By the way how come that ISO is 200? The exposure program says "Normal program" which is automatic exposure I guess? --Podzemnik (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the page name, I'll be sure to take care in the future! I tried to reduce the gradient in the sky, is it better now? Where is the dust spot? I'll be happy to remove it. If your question is why ISO 200 and not 100, then that's simply because for some reason ISO 200 is what my camera considers the default. --Domob (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Domob I've put a note where the spot is. I don't see a significant improvement in the sky, I even wonder if it's fixable... --Podzemnik (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the note, I removed the dust spot now and reworked the sky a bit more. Just for clarification, are you concerned about the gradient from dark on the left to brighter on the right, or the gradient from the very top to the horizon? There were quite strong winds with sand, so the latter is likely caused by sand in the air. --Domob (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Domob Thanks for the work and your explanation. I think it's better now :) --Podzemnik (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per nomination. My Olympus CSC also considers ISO 200 its default, it isn't that unusual. Cmao20 (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Sublime to the point of being otherworldly, and that's a high bar to get over given our other Namibian desert pictures. I almost swooned at it, and that's saying a lot for a desert landscape given the heat wave I'm sitting in looking at this. Perhaps some of the empty space at the top could be cropped down a bit more, but that's really a matter of taste on which I defer to the photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Very nice dunes and great evening light, but the composition within the frame is important, and here 50% is filled with boring sky. Instead of a 4:3 crop, I would suggest a standard 3:2, because this gradient is not as interesting as this relief with sand. Cutting just over the fine clouds, you'll get a more striking image -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I'm happy to do that change, as it might indeed look nicer. But I'd like to get others feedback on this as well (in case some of the current supporters wouldn't want this change to happen). --Domob (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, do get rid of some of the heavily posterized sky. You could also offer an alt. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Provided an alternate. I hope I did that correctly (if not, please point me to the right procedure for doing it). --Domob (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   weak support - prefer the alternative, but would still support this. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The alternative is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

AlternateEdit

 

  •   Comment As suggested, here is an alternate version that has some of the sky cropped out.
  •   Support Much better and great image -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support this one. -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others.--Ermell (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Also fine. Cmao20 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I actually also like this one better myself. --Domob (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Stronger composition, the empty sky in the previous one wasn't doing anything. -- King of ♠ 22:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Better. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support yes! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  15:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This one is even better. --Aristeas (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 01:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Volkach Hallburg Weinberg 200734.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2019 at 21:45:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
  •   Info Vineyards in Lower Franconia near Hallburg Castle. In the background you can see the Steigerwald. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice and simple composition. The sides are out of focus but I'm not too bothered - it helps reinforce the central subject. -- King of ♠ 01:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice compo Poco2 15:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I really love this, what a beautiful composition. Cmao20 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support File this one under "Shouldn't work, but it does" Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 05:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The thumbnail doesn't do this justice. Maybe it's just me, but at a glance at the thumbnail, the blurred foreground on the edges -- and the orange parts in general -- seem a little messy, but at full size it's really quite nice. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:22, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think it is tilted clockwise. See pylons and church spire. -- Colin (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Thanks for the hint. You were right.--Ermell (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Apart from the blurry sides, very nice composition. F/16 would have been very appropriate with this long focal length -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe the image stabilization would have reached its limits. The general sharpness doesn't necessarily increase either, but I will try it at the next opportunity.--Ermell (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes a tripod (or monopod) is usually necessary in such operations. Interesting work anyway -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not only nigh-perfect symmetry with both straight and curved features, but also an archetypical example of luminosity/chromatic contrast in nature (background subdued green-blue versus foreground bright orange. A text-book example. My full respect for this image! --Franz van Duns (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Aldrin Looks Back at Tranquility Base - GPN-2000-001102.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2019 at 12:10:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ruïne Casti Munt Sorn Gieri Waltensburg (actm) 24.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2019 at 15:43:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Memorial stone.
  •   Info Waltensburg/Vuorz. Switzerland. Ruïne Casti Munt Sorn Gieri (Burg Jörgenberg). Memorial stone. A simple photo that fascinates me in one way or another.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Support per nom. It's a very good photo that has a good form and rewards moving my eyes around it. Not the most obvious FP, but I think it merits the designation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is a technically correct photo. Unfortunately I can't find a wow effect. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell. -- King of ♠ 05:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't get it either, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell Poco2 18:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others--Boothsift 03:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Subject well-placed within frame. Nice surface sheen and signs of corrosion at bottom left, I thus assume bronze. Well captured and of historical interest. --Franz van Duns (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Underwater slope in Gullmarn fjord 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2019 at 08:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
  •   Info Ok, maybe not the aquarium-perfect seascape we see further south, but millions of small creatures live in these underwater forests on the steep slopes of Gullmarn fjord marine nature reserve. Shot on a clear sunny day with the blue sky reflecting on the water, I think it looks intriguing. -- Cart (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support fascinating interplay of shapes and colors. The aspect ratio is a little bit odd, though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect, but quite interesting. Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colorful but uninteresting for me, and messy composition with indistinct elements -- Basile Morin (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Delightfully hallucinatory; the sort of image you want surrounding you while you listen to ambient music. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Daniel Case--Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Trippy. Also, I like the colours very much. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile – Lucas 18:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not compelling imo. And I can't see the value. —kallerna (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Kallerna, per Podzemnik's comment below, I suggest you read the FPC rules more carefully. This is not Wikipedia. Even so, this photo (one of a pair), are the only ones we have showing Chorda filum as it grows naturally in the sea. You can clearly see the hairy structure of the cords, something that is totally lost in all the other photos. I'd call that valuable in an encyclopedic way. --Cart (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the guidance. My main reason was not the second sentence, but the first. —kallerna (talk) 05:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It was not the kind of shot I undoubtly see as FP, but your last FP of this item was probably more interesting in terms of colors and compo, this one is not as interesting IMHO Poco2 15:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I've looked at this photo quite a few times, and my feeling is that it has an overwhelming movement to the lower right and no sufficient countervailing movement, so I find the form unsatisfying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:SMS Arcona NH 65764 - Restoration.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2019 at 02:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Very nice, but you should increase the contrast. The ship is supposed to be white, isn't? Regards, Yann (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: But, presuming the uniforms have white in them - which, given that such uniforms were pretty much universally navy blue or white, is a safe bet - we can assume something's white in the image, and adjust accordingly. There we are! I don't like to over-stretch the levels; it's not literally radiating light, but that should be pretty good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   moderate oppose highly interesting, skillfully restored - no doubt! It's just that I find the composition a bit unbalanced. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Believable to me, and a very good historical photo, in my opinion. Martin, are you objecting to the amount of water in the foreground? If so, I won't oppose an 1897 photo with this much content for that reason. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 07:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but it doesn't really excite me...--Peulle (talk) 07:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent historical photo. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Similar image with superb quality, but taken last week would not get a single supporting vote. —kallerna (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    • And... how do you plan to do that? Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:48, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Kiduku dance.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 18:58:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created & uploaded by Rasheedhrasheed - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose this has FP potential: great composition with the framing, good subject separation and light. Nice big smile of the boy in the back. The main problem for me are the very noticeable CAs everywhere and the noise for ISO 100. – Lucas 07:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree, the shot is FP-worthy and interesting but the quality level is below FP requirements, Poco2 15:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Lucas--Boothsift 03:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately per Poco. Cmao20 (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Hibiscus P1230969.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 16:51:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
  •   Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad, but nothing outstanding for FP. The resolution is not impressive. The size of the flower is not obvious. The location is not provided (as usual). --A.Savin 21:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support It's a solid QI and I think it just about crosses the bar for me, but A.Savin's criticisms are correct. Cmao20 (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, uninteresting lighting. -- King of ♠ 00:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. The light is kind of harsh. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Provide the location, and I might support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice picture and a nice flower, but doesn't seem like FP. A lot of noise and the composition doesn't quite work for me (with the wood in the background on only one side and the flower slightly off center -- doesn't quite seem right for the proportions). — Rhododendrites talk |  02:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --Boothsift 03:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Pro: subject centered nicely within a square, subdued colours, and slanted illumination. Con: too much chromatic noise and weak image sharpness. --Franz van Duns (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Blue-Lotus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 10:54:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
  •   Info created by Abdulmominbd - uploaded by Abdulmominbd - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The wow is considerable, but I think the technical side could be better. Cmao20 (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Cmao. -- King of ♠ 00:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad for a smartphone photo but I think the quality is not there. It's quite patchy and it looks like some kind of a filter has been used here. Good for Instafram but not FP for me, sorry. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The colors look artificial -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose Another great sanitary-napkin-box image, but it looks too overprocessed for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 07:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others--Boothsift 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMHO the colors are overamplified. Would look gorgeous on transparent print, though. --Franz van Duns (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Structure from driftwood on the beach in New Brighton, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2019 at 10:18:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#New_Zealand
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I like the light and composition. The photo was taken right after the sunrise so the sun is shining right into the structure. The photo is photo-stacked from 2: one photo is focused on the structure, another photo is focused on the Moon. The grass is quite soft but I think it's alright - it provides some depth to it and I couldn't really photo-stacked it anyway, it was quite windy and the grass was moving a lot. -- Podzemnik (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A clever and creative idea. The grass is a bit soft, but this isn't the kind of picture you pixel-peep - the wow is all there at small size. Cmao20 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 07:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 00:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I can't see any encyclopedical value for this. For me this is only a photo of some debris during a sunset, no wow. —kallerna (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, with minimal effort I discovered this article with interesting facts centred on Driftwood. --Franz van Duns (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Großglockner Hochalpenstraße 21082018 139.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2019 at 18:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info View to the top of the Wilhelm-Swarovski-Beobachtungswarte in Austria created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Nice picture, and I like the stained glass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Off-center, no wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel and the spiral is cut at the top and bottom. --Cart (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Good picture, and certainly a subject with FP potential, but Cart is right that the spiral is cut, and the glare from the bottom left bothers me. I think the execution could be a litte bit better for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel and Cart.--Vulphere 07:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others--Boothsift 00:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Cmao20. The unexpectedly colourful apex gives a cheery note together with the very unusual spirals taken from a lop-sided perspective. I like that. As the perimeter areas are not really sharp, I suggest choosing a square format and a radical crop, hewing off one complete turn of the outer spiral and solely concentrating on the colours/structures against the blue. This would, of course be a new image altogether. --Franz van Duns (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Kościelec view 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2019 at 05:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Change to   Oppose. Colin is definitely right about the technical flaws. I think my screen wasn't bright enough to see the posterisation earlier. Cmao20 (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 07:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Per Cmao20, quality is good and the view nice, but you alone have a bunch of such images. The whole mountain range could be FP to me but this frame alone is not telling me much in terms of composition, sorry Poco2 17:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Poco about the composition. Also the sky has heavy posterisation and there is green/purple chroma noise/aberration over the whole image. -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A bit empty, compared to this one promoted last week for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)