Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Hollister Municipal Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2016 at 00:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created & stuff by -- WPPilot (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WPPilot (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose High EV and a very good quality aerial shot, but nothing that would make it an FP here. COM:VIC would be a better place for this. lNeverCry 07:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Persépolis, Irán, 2016-09-24, DD 27.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2016 at 13:01:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info View of the Gate of All Nations, belonging to the homonym palace and located in the ruins of the ancient city of Persepolis, Iran. The construction of the Gate of All Nations was ordered by the Achaemenid king Xerxes I (486-465 BC), the successor of the founder of Persepolis, Darius I the Great. All by me, Poco2 13:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 13:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Do you have tilt screen ? This shot is so touristic. I would shot from the ground, to capture bigger solid angle up to the sky. Now tourists in back and tight crop from bad position, it doesnt seem well. --Mile (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Mawrth Vallis martian mosaic.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2016 at 11:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info created by ESA/DLR/FU Berlin - uploaded by JukoFF - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hmm, should that copyright mark down left be on an FPC? --cart-Talk 12:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    Well, for Mars, it may be good :) JukoFF (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The copyright on the photo, like any other watermark or signature, per se disqualifies this picture from QI or FP consideration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan --WPPilot (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Bombus pascuorum - Bombus bohemicus - Cirsium heterophyllum - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2016 at 11:47:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Charles, this isn't a species-identification photo, but an action photo. I think it acceptable to not see all parts of an animal that has its head buried in the flower. We lack behaviour/action photos. -- Colin (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Nearly all bee images are like this one and there are many to promote that show the animals better. Top-notch bee photos show the nectaring, or pollen or some other interesting behavior. For me, most animal photos need a head... Charles (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good catch -- Colin (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Салют на морском порту.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2016 at 10:42:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I applied a noise reduction over the current image --The Photographer 18:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks The Photographer. --A.Savin 19:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Very great improvement. Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
You are welcome guys --The Photographer 23:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --WPPilot (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Some quality issues (blown highlights, overaggresive NR), but the problems aren't that major compared to the wow factor. -- King of ♠ 06:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Okayama Castle, November 2016 -02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2016 at 07:26:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I kind of anticipated that argument... fair enough though. INeverCry et al, would you prefer either this alternative or that one? Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I find the texture and colors of the different foliage enchanting as they "encase" the castle. Perhaps a more appropriate name for the photo would be something like "Trees in front of Okayama Castle". It is a beautiful composition, the castle in its full glory can be seen in other photos. cart-Talk 12:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, my thoughts exactly. Well, I guess I should give this nomination another chance to see what others think. --Martin Falbisoner (talk)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bizarre composition. Charles (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • hmm, ok. And the aforementioned alternatives? Less bizarre? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Bizarre: the leaves at the top and the building partially obscured :) (I don't fancy the alternatives) Charles (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ...which are not "alternatives", but very different pictures...--Jebulon (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I actually like the composition to a point and I'm not sure how much I mind the beautiful evergreen bushes being in front of the castle, although maybe they block too much of it. I think what causes me to oppose a feature may be more the degree of unsharpness of the foliage in the foreground and how dark it is (and maybe how much of it there is) than anything else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info I would support a version that had less of the red maple tree and was better cropped. I like the photo not the crop.. --WPPilot (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the unorthodox but effective use of the leaves as an upper framing device. I am also not bothered by the unsharpness on the middle leaves—the real subject is the building, and it's sharp. It gives the whole thing a very painterly quality. Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Kampen, de Stadsbrug foto10 2016-02-17 10.35.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2016 at 20:58:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info created by Michielverbeek - uploaded by Michielverbeek - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Michielverbeek}}|]] -- Michielverbeek (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Michielverbeek (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't get the purpose of the railing. Charles (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like the railing as part of the composition. Could you please fix the vertical distortion (note the tilted tower on the far left)? -- King of ♠ 02:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose to much uninteresting railing. Perhaps a crop!? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 08:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The railing is indeed a part of the composition, it goes from the right bottom corner to the right part of the main object. Unfortunately I did not see that the tower in the far left is tilted. I did not succeed in correcting this weakness without disturbing the right part of the photo so I   I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for reviews. --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Ceiling of left chapel in Cathedral (Monreale) - Mosaic of Christ Pantocrator,large view.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2016 at 18:16:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • That feels unbalanced because of not being centered. I'm not sure what the best solution is in this case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sometimes it just doesn't come together. No big deal. lNeverCry 08:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per INC and also because of unsharp sections. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per discussion above under INC's !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Polytelis swainsonii - Canberra.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2016 at 18:00:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The bird gets a bit lost in the foliage for me, especially the leaves around its beak and head. lNeverCry 19:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree. The bird is excellent, but the rest of the photo is not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Pretty and colorful psittacine, but I agree with INC that it doesn't stand out enough from its background. Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose quality and green back spoil it.--Mile (talk) 07:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Romeria de los Labradores - Santa Lucía de Tirajana.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2016 at 17:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Панорама на Мариово во близина на селото Манастир (3).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2016 at 15:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Cercal March 2016-1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2016 at 13:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Abandoned country house in the region of Alentejo, Portugal. (Mild) minimalism again. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Minimalist. I like it! -- King of ♠ 14:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not for me. Charles (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Now wow for me either. lNeverCry 20:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Doesn't work for me because the grass took such a huge bite out of the house. Maybe that's actually an interesting compositional element, but it doesn't wow me and actually makes me feel slightly uncomfortable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Rough chameleon (Trioceros rudis).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2016 at 10:38:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •   Info This little chap is 10cm (4") long and lives in the Volcanoes National Park, Rwanda; 2600m (8,500ft) above sea level. All by User:Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- AWeith (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 12:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support outstanding! --Ivar (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 14:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Joining the chorus. --cart-Talk 14:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportTBhagat (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Of course --The Photographer 18:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Samsara (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Pile-on support You can practically feel those bumps when you pan back and forth. Daniel Case (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great. --Code (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Was this color adopted on this tree, or he was put on the tree from the ground ? It doesnt cover him so well, this camouflage. --Mile (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    He/she was on the branch, but we moved him clear of a bush for a good shot. Charles (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahhh, so if you had made the shot where s(he) naturally was, it wouldn't have been as clear or good. A bit of "analogue editing" there.   --cart-Talk 19:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would put that into description, so is still on re-coloring. --Mile (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Chimney Rock Trail Point Reyes December 2016 panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2016 at 05:54:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I'd prefer for you not to change it. I don't think it's overexposed; instead, I felt like it was actually that bright over there, and I like the different shades of the cliffs in the bright sunlight. Plus, if you decrease the highlights, the rest of the picture will lose vivacity and drama. I also think Mile makes a good point about the contrast between the bright sunlight on the left and shadow on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment basically per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Do keep it! I think we are sometimes oversensitive to bright/white skies that are perfectly fine and not blown. I glad someone had the guts to present such a dramatic pic you get from this effect. Many photos here are "self-censored" and loose their drama since users don't want the automatic "it's blown" comment. --cart-Talk 11:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support overexposed corner a pity but not decisive imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support When highlated part made some ambience here, with contrast on enshadowed right side. --Mile (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Benh (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 11:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support We all know sensors see light conditions different than the human eye. I could imagine standing up there and staring into the glistening sun one would see more on the debated left corner. However, I would leave it as is; its a dream beach... -- AWeith (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 12:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support There is nothing at all "over exposed" here. The sun was bright, last time I saw it. -- Colin (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The top left corner bothers my eyes, and the body of water at right looks like a glacier. lNeverCry 20:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan and cart; the blown highlight is necessary to get that relaxing golden-hour late-day raking-light California mood (again, cart, I think of Lush's "Monochrome") I get the feeling this is what King saw when he pressed the shutter and what he wants us to see. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Daniel it isn't "blown". It is bright yellow. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It was late and I was in a rush. I knew it really wasn't fair to say it that way; I was just responding to some of the opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 08:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Telamonia dimidiata-Kadavoor-2016-11-28-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2016 at 04:20:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Here the composition is very tight and I've no room for any attempt to straighten, if that you meant. The subject is always looking at the camera and turns again whenever I move. Jee 09:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would also look if some round glass thing with dark material around it, the size of a house came down over me!   --cart-Talk 11:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice picture (perhaps need tone adjusted?), but perhaps this one @Vengolis: is better? Charles (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Charles, this is underside of banana leaf, having this color. Vengolis is my friend; I'll not compare on his works!   Jee 11:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Spider yuk! Photo great. :) --cart-Talk 11:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee, the shadow here is nice and soft (vs this). Did you use flash and/or diffuser? The tone is a little more yellow/warm than the other photo (which possibly is too "cold flash white" coloured). I don't know which is accurate of course, but you might want to experiment with the colour balance a little to see if you prefer a less warm tone. But don't make it as cold as the other one, and if you think this is accurate then fine. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Colin: Yes; here the diffuser worked very well at ISO 250. I took many similar picture later. I used in Periyar National Park too though it's a bit difficult to use in such expedition. The underside of banana leaf is quite yellow. I usually and hope here too reduced the kelvin to 5400K. I'll check it again and get back. Jee 13:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops; it was 5500K. I reduced it to 5400K. Colin and Charles, please check whether it is better? Jee 13:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Better now, Charles (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the tight crop on the legs at bottom. lNeverCry 20:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is as good as it's gonna get. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I also find the pictures under too much cut out, but despite that FP.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes; Famberhorst, I'm well aware of it. But as I replied to mile above, it was just happened originally when I photographed it. It is very difficult to check all sides of the frame in EVF when we stretched over to get the subject in the frame from above or under. So I too think "this is as good as it's gonna get." as Daniel commented above. Jee 01:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:La Martorana (Palermo) - Dome.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 23:32:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose Welcome back Livio. I dont like highlights here, neither reflextion on left. Not good time, dust or dawn if possible, HDR otherwise. --Mile (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks,you have right, thanks however --LivioAndronico (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Welcome back Livio. Nice, but per others. Furthermore the composition should be centered, even if I guess "something" make this impossible.--Jebulon (talk) 09:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Mile and Jebulon. But felice di riaverti nonetheless. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Mural com referências a Lisboa e São Paulo no empório Arte Nata na Rua Frei Caneca, 1380 - bem perto da Avenida Paulista.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 23:14:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Norderney, Bücherschrank am Onnen-Visser-Platz -- 2016 -- 5436-42.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 19:39:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 19:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I love these little outdoor libraries, but I don't see anything that wows me photographically here. lNeverCry 20:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree. It's a very high-quality photo, really excellent unnoisy night photography, but the composition doesn't wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   OpposeDietmar, I've always been so overwhelmed by your photographic expertise and I admired your capabilities to find the most fantastic perspectives and the most appropriate lighting. I don't want to be exaggerating, but this Bücherschrank disappoints me. It could have helped if you had found somebody making use of it; however, lonely as it is it makes me rather gloomy. Sorry, Sir... --AWeith (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A great picture: The books are illuminating the darkness which surrounds them. They stand peacefully and silent on a place which is - at least in my imagination - very crowdy at daytime. Still they don't sleep (or do they?). However, the longer I look at this picture the more ideas I get about it. The composition works very well for me. The quality is as good as usual although the main subject could be somewhat crisper. Anyways an excellent picture. I don't really understand the opposes above. --Code (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose can't see anything that says FP. Charles (talk)
  •   Support per Code. Absolutely. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Besides being a good photo, I find it rather allegorical; a bookcase as a beacon of colorful light in an otherwise dark and drab world. --cart-Talk 11:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - I support the allegorical message that others are perceiving and that maybe I wasn't sensitive enough to get, so I'm changing my vote to neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Never seen this before. -- Colin (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support New to me too. Searched and found! Jee 16:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. If less of the background were visible, I might like this as an FP more, per cart's interpretation of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW for the composition --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Can't see anything that says FP. Charles (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe a foreground crop out would make the composition better, but per supporters.--Jebulon (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I would wait for this shot. Winter and snow ! Then should be top shot, by night. I would put camera down to the ground. Also staying away from railing on left. --Mile (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Vinylite and corrosion applied in a horse hoof.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info Horse hoof after technique of vinylite and corrosion, which allows for the visualization of the vascular architecture of the specimen, on display at the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP. Created by Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP / Wagner Souza e Silva - uploaded by Joalpe - nominated by Joalpe -- Joalpe (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Joalpe (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support HEV. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral DoF problem --The Photographer 19:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As a scientist I do understand that the documentation of a novel technique or a new finding deserves a particular status; this is reflected here by awarding this image as a valued image. Also, I am used to the fact that scientific images have to be clear and expressive. This is the case for this image as well (I suspect that as I do not understand the technique applied). But I do not understand why this image should match the criteria of a featured picture. As I said it is sharp, clear and scientifically excellent, but that is what all scientific illustrations should be. And you can't promote every single scientific illustration to a featured picture, can you?. Sorry for being so blunt. --AWeith (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Sturm (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Not all effective scientific illustrations are this striking. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Samsara (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Rhythm of the mountains.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • (Edit conflict)I wouldn't go as far as to say that the colors are unnatural (the sky is perfectly fine), I've seen some spectacular mountain ranges, but some noice reduction would nevertheless be much appreciated. It looks like the opening scene of The Last of the Mohicans. :) --cart-Talk 12:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Yes, thank you for finding the file that I was thinking of. It's not only a similar scene, it's also less noisy and has colors I like better. If this photo could be denoised in a major way and would look better because of that, I might reconsider my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  Done Stitching errors have been corrected. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Martin. lNeverCry 20:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose plus: the panoramic view pleases the eye. minus: maybe the time of day was not ideal for this shot; a point of time somewhat earlier would have provided a wee bit more light to play with. Extreme overprocessing in my opinion; oversaturation, strong noise in the dark areas, colors of the sky and the blue mountains don't really match; the mountain in black in the foreground is too prominent.--AWeith (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Would be perfect if the noise was not there. -- -donald- (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Ceriagrion cerinorubellum-Kadavoor-2016-11-28-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 04:30:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info Ceriagrion cerinorubellum with prey. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 04:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Usually the food of these damselflies are smaller moths, mosquitoes and other small insects. Here it is able to catch a somewhat bigger moth using its basket legs. But due to the excessive weight, it failed to manage a typical landing; but somehow managed a perch on a leaf and balanced with the tail end of its abdomen. I can see the prey making every effort to escape. When the head of the prey is finished, it moved to a comfortable perch. The white flakes we see in the air, body of the damselfly and leaf are loosen wing-scales of the moth. Jee 04:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good capture (you and the damselfly). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Technically not so good, but brilliant capture. Charles (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I already noticed this image, and I wondered if this is the same individual who, frightened by you, moved with his prey. I wonder if odonates carries heavy and far... Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Big odonates like Orthetrum sabina are able to hunt other near sized odonates or butterflies. But damselflies are weak and supposed to hunt small preys. Any way they need to hunt the prey in air using the basket legs (dragonflies can catch the prey only when the prey is in flight; damselflies can catch/pick small perched preys too) and soon make a comfortable perch using the remaining legs. Here the prey is big and the damselfly failed to kill it fast. It is making some movements to escape. So the damselfly used all the legs to grab the prey and made a strange landing. When the prey became dead, it moved to its classical perch. Jee 02:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the answer, that's interesting. If the basket legs are not useful in locomotion, it seems odonates uses also the basket legs also to perch and cling when they have not a prey. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. As odonates can't walk, they use their legs to perch and catch. Sometimes they use only the middle legs; using the third row of legs to balance,keeping forelegs unused. The forelegs can be used to clean their eyes as used here. The most interesting perch is this where all legs are used to form a roller bearing. Here it can rotate according to the wing directions without realsing the grips with the branch! That damselfly is a showman enjoying to showcase its gymnastic talents when the wind blows. ;) Jee 06:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Measured support I wonder if some of the top could be cropped off to take advantage of the latitudinality of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, your choice. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Daniel's suggestion is quite reasonable, but I think it's best to leave as is as other users may prefer current format. Charles (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The Photographer, I saw the note you added in the image. It is not dust, The white flakes we see in the air, body of the damselfly and leaf are loosen wing-scales of the moth. I kept it intentionally as I hope it will add more reality to the picture. See another one. Jee 15:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  Support Per Jkadavoor comment --The Photographer 15:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Pattern lamps 2016-1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 23:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info May there be light in the dark winter nights! And long live minimalism! Composition with a street lamp in Porto Covo, Portugal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question Looks really cool. Just so I understand, you say "Composition with a street lamp" so this is one lamp cloned three times and not one photo of three lamps side by side, is that right? --cart-Talk 23:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Thank you for a prompt and clear answer. Sorry, the pic is very cool and it is a great minimalistic photo of a lamp you have cloned, but this is similar to previous discussions about 'mirrored' images. I know that people have different views on this, but I don't think such photos should be in FP since they don't follow the guidelines for Digital manipulations of FPCs. That guideline also states that any such work should be clearly stated in the file's description so please add that. --cart-Talk 00:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think this level of manipulation is appropriate for an FP. -- King of ♠ 01:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

*  Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC) changing my vote to   Neutral after considering Colin's objection. While I can't support this nomination as such, I'm certainly not opposed to more creative approaches to imaging here on FPC --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I actually agree with you about letting in more creative approches, but as the guidelines are now, this falls into a grey area. cart-Talk 13:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't undestand the objections of W.carter, King of Hearts and Martin. The photo is described as a "montage", which is an image created by combining serveral images. It does appear to be the same lamp 3x rather than 3 different lamps brought together at composition time. Perhaps the description text can be improved, but that's hardly a reason to oppose. We have similarly combined images at FP. I'd probably find the image more interesting with three different lamps, perhaps at slightly different angles. And a single lamp is probably too minimal to be interesting. But I think this should be judged on its success as a image rather than how it is described. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There was extensive discussion the last time a digital manipulation was nominated, with people having strong oppinions pro and con, as seems to be the case here too. Also, the example you mention is more like what we now refer to as a "set". cart-Talk 09:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
W.carter I think that example is more problematic as the image might appear to be Liège-Guillemins Station interior but can't exist and does mislead the viewer. Actually my photo deliberately wasn't a set, but a triptych. I wanted it to be viewed as an arrangement of three images. I am also reminded of File:Red LEDs.jpg, which is an actual row of LEDs, and File:Bouncing ball strobe edit.jpg. Two POTY images File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg and File:Glühlampe explodiert.jpg have the bulb screw Photoshopped in. Anyway, I just don't think we should rule out "montage" as a valid presentation form at Commons FP. What is regarded as FP (or even, in scope for Commons) is highly variable. -- Colin (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Colin, I agree that the triptych concept as such (or versions of it) definitely has a place in FP as in the examples you have given, but all those are of different versions/angles/aspects of something, this is the exact same photo repeated three times, therefore it is more akin to the mirroring images where the same photo is also repeated two times albeit one mirrored. (Sidebar: And if we're going for the repetition theme, the are more interesting ways of doing that). cart-Talk 11:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm fully aware that this is a risky nomination. Not because the image is manipulated or the same object is repeated three times but owing to its artistic, rather than illustrative, nature. As a matter of fact I'm not interested in documenting what a street lamp looks like but in using its image to make an abstract composition. Thus the proper criteria to evaluate this nomination should be aesthetical, not encyclopedic. As long as the revewers agree that Common is the right place to host this kind of pictures and FPC is the right place to assess them, of course! Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I - honestly - love to vote with a strong positive vote for this one. However, as I seem to not having internalized the rules and regulations for FP yet, I hesitated in the beginning. From all comments made so far, to me it all boils down to the question of the artistic versus the documentary value. In this regard, cloning within a photo is toxic to documentation but often a survival factor for arts. In this particular image it's the survival - and winning - factor. I guess that the rules and regulations for nomination of FP's should make more clear how to handle a candidate that is clearly not attempting to document a given scenery or situation. I fully second Alvesgaspar's last comment and would like to add that it would sit well on Commons if purely artistic photographic work could also be awarded with the most prestigious achievements it has to provide.--AWeith (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Both Colin and cart make very good arguments. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:FS E 444R Cervo 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 23:15:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •   Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Certainly one of the best views of the now replaced section of the Genoa-Ventimiglia railway can be found at Cervo, Italy.
  •   Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Oh! It's a picture of a railway. I thought it was a photo of a town with a beach... Just kidding, great as usual. :) --cart-Talk 23:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Wonderful! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Claus 03:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent light and composition. And the first picture I ever added to Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark IV. --Code (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderful indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice perspective.--Mile (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support All round excellence. Charles (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support For to be a bit picky, the sky is'nt perfect (little pixelation), and there are a very few sharpening artefacts (I talk about pixel level), I know I am exaggerating, very good image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The composition is not optimal, it needs a crop below (too much useless water). IMO. --Jebulon (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment I didn't crop as much as you suggested, but instead also added some more sky and kept the aspect ratio. I think it's better now. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I think, like Jebulon, it could have some sea removed. How about a 16:9 crop retaining all the sky and removing a little less sea than Jebulon suggests. -- Colin (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Original crop was fine, too. Samsara (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Panorama of lake Baikal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 23:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panorama of lake Baikal. The first ice on the lake. Here is the deepest part of the lake, more then 1600 meters. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi Sergey, and welcome to this very new user plunging right in at the hardest section here. :) This is a great photo, but you really need to clean up the categories for it. On your talk page there is a very useful message with some tips about things here. I suggest you take a look at Commons:Categories for a bit of guidance. --cart-Talk 23:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I've trimmed the categories and adjusted the English description. I need to get to Category:Lake Baikal and do some refining/creating. Lake Baikal in different seasons for instance. It's a bit of a mess, and I transferred 500 or more of the images from Flickr...   lNeverCry 23:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! You are a "workaholic" here and we really appreciate you for it.   --cart-Talk 00:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very impressive at full size! One question, though: What is the blue and greenish yellow diagonal line in the near right corner of the lake? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: FYI - The uploader looks to be en-1/2, so he may have difficulty responding or may use translation software. lNeverCry 01:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: Thank you! It's the lens flare from the Sun. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought it would be something like that. Could you possibly clean that up? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and I heartily   Support this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support For the sheer scale of it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Paris, mairie du 10e arrdt, hall 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 19:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created and uploaded by Coyau - nominated by -- Benh (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info To be viewed with the viewer before assessment.
  •   Support I find it Very impressive. -- Benh (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Hugely detailed. There some minor stitching errors and discontinuity in the central gold light fitting with some lens flare on half of it. But there is nothing can be done about that now, sadly. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

*  Oppose size --Mile (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  •   Support Corrections made. --Mile (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Mile means file size, for those who are puzzled by the vote. - Benh (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Mile, this isn't a problem for the panorama viewer so I don't see why it should be a problem for Commons FP. There are gigapixel panoramas on the internet that offer an amazing chance to explore in all three dimensions, so there are possibilities for even larger files than this that would be highly educational. -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - My experience, too - no difficulty at all in opening it in the 3D pano viewer, and it's certainly of FP quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Stitching error (see note). -- King of ♠ 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very well done and interesting subject. Honestly I can't believe that someone really opposes because of the file being too large. Mile, you must be kidding (and this is really a bad joke). Especially such 360° panoramas should be as large as possible in order to offer the possibility of zooming into the details. We should strongly encourage that. If you've for some strange reasons problems with files being too large then please, at least abstain from voting instead of opposing. --Code (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Code, I have seen someone oppose at FP because a file was too free (CC0). So anything is possible, not just on April 1st. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info I dont see any reason for being at 170+ MB, i could see this "stitched with mistakes" in much lower MPx and wouldnt miss any value. Picture is medicore by quality, and i saw at lest 3 mistake, not mentionig flare. Code did you see anything !? --Mile (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info 2 : Benh did you saw mistakes while uploading. Person did pass away as i see on his homepage. Rest in peace. But do we get any "bonus" with our pictures by that ?! Will our photography be more feautered ? Would you vote same if i was the author ? Re-think... --Mile (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't know. Mile, you support a 6MP image and yet complain about minor stitching issues only visible at 100% on a 450 MP image. Commons is a media repository and any sized image can be generated automatically in software when the image is rendered by the server or on your screen. The issue of the author's death is not that we should be more generous, but that there is no prospect to fix the image. Many of the nit-picking complaints at FP are made with the assumption that an active Commons user should be able to fix them and submit a new version. That isn't possible, so we just have to judge it for its pro and con as is. And the pro more than outweigh the con. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I was looking on 1/3 of resolution - 5 MPx wide. I found some mistakes in a minute and some are to large for FP. Looking at 100% i would probably find more of them. --Mile (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I cannot judge this image as the largest size I can view is 1280 x 640. Charles (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The 3-D panorama viewer isn't working for you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No, just get some fixed 360 panorama. Charles (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Charlesjsharp: Then you should use the viewer. The link has been mentioned twice, but here again : Link. If for some reason it doesn't work with you, then maybe it's better you remove your vote (which doesn't have much sense as it is). - Benh (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You say 'for some reason it doesn't work with you, then maybe it's better you remove your vote'. It's up to you to make it easy for us to vote on your image, so may be you should sort it rather than tell me how to vote. Charles (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Charles, how can Benh fix the issues with your PC or browser? Is he your local tech support? Are you having issues with other 360 panoramas or just this one? I have tried Chrome, Edge and Firefox and they all work fine. In terms of judging the JPG (should one wish to) have you tried downloading it and opening it in an image program (Photoshop, etc) rather than in a browser. I don't think it fair for you to oppose someone's image just because you are having technical issues of your own. -- Colin (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hope you are kidding (but you look serious). You are a regular, yet you don't know how to reach the pano viewer... I did everything and gave proper warning (and Colin added similar instructions on top). Don't blame the picture because you don't read them or don't get the concept of 360°. - Benh (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No need to be so rude. I have opened the panoramic viewer in Explorer and Chrome. Both show a fixed 360 deg panorama different from the image in the submission. @Benh: Perhaps it would be more polite to suggest a solution rather than insulting me. I am not an idiot. Charles (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The polite thing would be to read before making false accusations. Everything is explained. - Benh (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  Support Featurable. Thanks Benh. in memoriam Coyau, who passed away one week ago...--Jebulon (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Our interior panoramas are always so well done ... I enjoy them more than the ones on Google. Daniel Case (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info @INeverCry, Colin, PetarM, Ikan Kekek, Code: @Martin Falbisoner, Daniel Case, Martin Falbisoner, Jebulon, Charlesjsharp: I took the liberty to fix many (not all) of the stitching errors and to upload it over Coyau's original version. I also compressed the picture a bit further, resulting in a file a quarter as big and probably without noticeable quality loss to most. Could you make sure it still is on par with your votes ? Feel free to let know if I can fix other stitching errors while I keep the huge tif at home. - Benh (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I have opened and looked at this version, but how do I open the previous version in the 3D pano viewer to be able to toggle back and forth and compare them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: Hmm this is an issue. I haven't found how to do that. Panoviewer is based on [Pannelum] and looks to have been added to Wikipedia by user:Dschwen. On the Pannellum tutorial we can specify a source from its full URL, but I wasn't able to replicate with panoviewer. I've tried with the viewer on pannellum's website [2] but it says the panorama is too big. What I personally do is downloading the image and view it at home with a viewer. this one works good with me. Yes it's a bit troublesome. - Benh (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking into this. It seems like too much trouble, so I'll just ask you: Did you decrease the brightness in any part of the image when editing it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I did, in the whole image. But it's a very small adjustment. You'll have to trust me when I claim to have fixed many stitching errors :) But it's quite noticeable even at panoviewer size (Miles was right, we could see them clearly). - Benh (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess I was right, then. I was a bit disturbed by feeling a loss of light. I definitely trust you on the stitching errors, which I didn't notice in the first place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry my mistake... I *increased* brightness. But very slightly (I found it was a bit dark, but I didn't want to make too obvious changes without making it a derivative work). - Benh (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ah, so my perception was wrong. In that case, since I voted for the first version, there's surely no good reason for me to change my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Casa histórica de Boroujerdi, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 34-36 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 19:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info View of the rich ceiling of the interior courtyard of the Borujerdi House, a historic house located in Kashan, Iran. The house dates from 1857 and was constructed by architect Ustad Ali Maryam for a wealthy merchant as proof of love to his wife. All by me, Poco2 19:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing subject and well captured. -- Colin (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 23:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't known Poco2 is a human or a spider, but his house is amazing.--Claus 03:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Some of the skylight windows are blown, but that's too small a flaw to offset the majestic composition. Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportTBhagat (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Samsara (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Zon komt op boven een winters landschap. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 18:16:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Sun rises over a wintry landscape. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. All by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A scene like this is quite common around the world, so it's just not special enough for me. No clouds, no especially amazing composition. -- King of ♠ 01:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent colours, quality and composition. Much better than an average photo of a sunrise. --Code (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Request A beautiful photo, but please remove the small contrails above the left tree, --Michielverbeek (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but per KoH.--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support A little noisy, but nice mood. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Special enough for me and wow! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 16:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Nadar and/or workshop, the rest by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Robert Peary (1856 - 1920), US Navy rear admiral, engineer and North Pole explorer. Restored by me.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine restauration and what a mustache! Pugilist (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Someone else might have been more aggressive in restoring, but I appreciate your conservatism, and considering how old the photo is, it's of good quality - and certainly of a historically important person. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Request the left side of the forehead is too bright for me. Can you perhaps correct it? Otherwise a nice work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support ...and 7 --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 16:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Wavy fence and a wall BW version.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 14:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Created, uploaded and nominated by cart - Ideas, input and suggestions by Team FPC, -- cart-Talk 14:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 14:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per remarks in the thread on a variation on this theme. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I liked the color version too but this does bring out the lines better. Daniel Case (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support ...and 7--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, but unbalanced compo, tight crop and unnecessary BW for me. Additional no wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't understand the objection of "unnecessary BW". It has to be necessary? And in what kinds of cases do you think it is necessary? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry I mean "unnecessary BW conversion". I don't see any advantages here. It's simply my opinion. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Saint-Pétersbourg.- palais de Pavlovsk.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 11:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done change Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals.- Thanks.--Pierre André (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  Thank you It's a better cat. --Pierre André (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A bit too much distance between subject and viewer, and the tree at right accentuates that separation. lNeverCry 00:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per INC, and being in shadow doesn't help. -- King of ♠ 01:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just too much going on for this to work. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Mallnitz Stappitzer See Wasseroberfläche 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 09:57:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Reflections>
  •   Info Light reflections on the water surface of Lake Stappitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost like mine, but I guess we can have two. :) --cart-Talk 10:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - It's a blur at full size, but it sure is captivating at full-page size, and for this kind of photo, that's all that matters to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I was to support, but at full size, I disagree with Ikan Kekek, as almost all the half upper part is unsharp and it is too much. DoF issue IMO. Very nice nevertheless, and the kind of ideas I like. A pity. Next time maybe ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The upper part could be sharper, but all in all I support. Pugilist (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful, but unsharpness per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jebulon, sorry! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support ...and 7--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd generally like to see more images here that follow an artistic approach. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
    • +1, even if I opposed this one for technical reasons...--Jebulon (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:South Loop Chicago June 2015 001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 06:31:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 06:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 06:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, Sir! Good photo of contemporary architecture in context. The curved part of the building on the left reminds me of one of the better new buildings in Manhattan's Battery. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Do we need foreground? Charles (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice pic, but I find that my eyes get stuck on that big shadow and lines at the bottom of the pic, a crop might be in order. See note. --cart-Talk 12:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek, Charlesjsharp, W.carter: I have cropped the bottom and uploaded it directly over the original. If anyone prefers the original then I'll revert and create an alt. -- King of ♠ 01:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Cart's crop made the difference. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - No problem, I still support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Much better, but I'd do more, cropping to leave the board park in... Charles (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    For me a main feature of the composition was the crisscrossing lines at the bottom, which is why I was loath to crop any of it out at the beginning. I think the current version strikes a reasonable balance between including the lines and getting rid of shadows. -- King of ♠ 00:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks fine now, thanks! :) --cart-Talk 10:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Samsara (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Fort de la Justice (by) (14).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 21:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support I think this photo of a wrecked fortification of the Franco-Prussian War is poetic and remarkable, as the viewer really feels that they are inside of that desolate space when viewing. It was previously nominated by ComputerHotline on 3 March 2010 and got no votes or comments whatsoever, which I find extremely strange. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Please help. I'm not sure what I did wrong in editing this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Nevermind - seems to be OK now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems that you have encountered a problem with the template's substitution, because the picture was unsuccessfully nominated for FP in 2010 (see this). I manually edited the page to put the nomination in order but we still need clarification if a single picture can be nominated again after a failed attempt.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Ikan It isn't fixed. This page needs reverted back to 2010 and a new nomination with /2 on the end created. -- Colin (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Do I need to do anything other than add /2 to the title? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It didn't work to just put /2 at the end of the title. Please advise in more detail. Thanks a lot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
To be precise, I got an edit conflict with the old nomination I had just reverted to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support My support worked...I hope... lNeverCry 01:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is certainly a valuable image of important historical place but it doesn't work to me for an FA, because 1) there is obvious perspective distortion, 2) the composition is not the most interesting of the place (for example, the composition of this, this and this is more featurable) 2) there is an overexposed area on the right side caused by the sunlight reflection, and 3) the litter, especially the plastic bottle, on the ground is just too distracting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Your arguments are well-stated, and I certainly understand them, but I disagree with all of them, probably even the overexposure point. Maybe just a bit, but in the context of the whole, not only do I find it perfectly acceptable, but I hardly notice it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not feeling wowed by this. -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me. --Karelj (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Jean Michel Jarre B10-2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 21:16:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by A.Savin - uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info I think A.Savin has managed to get a very expressive portrait of Jean-Michel Jarre a notable composer and electronic musician under difficult conditions at a press conference. I may be biased - the first record I ever bought was Oxygène. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like it too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great portrait, and of course I'm biased!!   I still have the Les Concerts en Chine CD in the car on long drives. --cart-Talk 22:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent portrait. I love to see unposed portraits with emotion and personality like this. lNeverCry 22:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Slaunger! I would like to add that previously WP articles used snapshots of Jarre which didn't justice to him at all, e.g. this one. So this photo is very important to me, for this reason and also because I'm also electronic music fan. --A.Savin 22:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. -- Spurzem (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support excellent. Charles (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 08:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Too much space above, i would crop. --Mile ( talk) 09:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --smial 12:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Ah, ze French ... personne d'autre fait «élégamment désordonné» tout comme eux. Pas étonnant qu'ils aiment Mickey Rourke tellement! (If any native francophone can think of a better way of rendering "stylishly disheveled" than what Google came up with for me, please let me know ... I rather like it). I like the way he looks like he just woke up before the press conference and will therefore be, well, more real. I like the way his off-kilter look, eyes one way and face another while neither looks directly at the viewer, accentuates the unkempt hair, the unzipped jacket that makes me think "Members Only!" (but it's probably so much better than that), perhaps slouching slightly in his chair, as if he is the one dignifying the press with his presence. Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good portrait. -- Colin (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:KotaKinabalu Sabah CityMosque-00.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 13:16:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In what state is that, could be part of description. --Mile (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment ccw tilt. Towers and their reflectons must be on the same vertical line. --Ivar (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with Iifar. Very much want to support but would like this fixed. It isn't a simple global tilt, with the left more out than the right. Have you applied all the lens correction profile you can? The EXIF suggests you may have tried using Lightroom's Upright correction mode, which in my experience isn't always precise enough. Have you tried using the guided mode and drawing vertical lines from the top of all the spikes to their reflection. -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  Comment I applied perspective correction and removed a slight barrel distortion. For the top of the cupola, please note, that the spike is askew. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice picture, but the quality suffers from an excessive noise suppression. I'm used to see much higher level by Cccefalon. Any way to have it properly redeveloped? --A.Savin 22:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  Comment Thanks for your comment. However, I did not apply more noise reduction than I do usually. The effect might be due to the long exposure time and the application of HDR technique. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Nice blue minute - I mean "hour" - photo. :-) (Sunsets in Malaysia are really quick, 20 minutes from start to total darkness, from what I remember). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
According to's page for Kuala Lumpur (couldn't find one for Sabah), sunset on the date the photo was taken was at 7:02 local (I assume the camera clock was perhaps an hour ahead, or the sky was heavily clouded. Or both), followed by 22 minutes of "Oh? The day's over?" civil twilight, then 26 minutes of "Now this is blue hour!" nautical twilight, and finally 26 minutes of "Now where did I put the tripod?" astronomical twilight. This compares to a 4:29 p.m. local sunset in New York on the same date, with the c/n/a twilights coming in at 30, 30 and 34 minutes respectively.

So, yes, sunset in Malaysia during the Northern Hemisphere winter is a little shorter than at the lower end of the upper temperate latitudes. But not by much. Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you that my father loved to paint sunsets, and in Terengganu, he didn't even have enough time to sketch a sunset, so subjectively, it's a _much_ quicker sunset! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 00:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Beautiful shot, though it could be sharper. -- King of ♠ 02:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine with me after correction. --Ivar (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice reflection. -- Colin (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 13:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit oversharpened on the back minaret, perhaps, but overall well done. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Outstanding colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:VKG Energia panoraam.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 13:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info created by Kaupo Kikkas - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Imho perspective distortion needs to be corrected. --Ivar (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Ivar, I'm not sure this is possible or desirable for an aerial photo. The purpose of "correcting" vertical perspective is to give the illusion that one is perpendicular to the verticals, which clearly is not reasonable from a position far above the chimneys. There is a slight tilt on the horizon. -- Colin (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Is the tilt on the horizon OK, or something that should be changed? I think this is a pretty interesting photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any tilt there. Little bit of Earth's curvature, but that's it.
As there seems to be a general lack of industry-related imagery in Commons, I just went and asked for something. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm going to go ahead and support this nomination. As I stated above, this is interesting and good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support, amazing light. The trees are smeared but I personally recognize the challenge of getting distant trees sharp; some blown-out highlights on the smoke and building on the right but it's not too distracting for me. -- King of ♠ 02:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A fine job technically, but just way too much going on compositionally for it to be FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very interesting document, very sharp but I think a serious perspective correction could help for a rectlinear view. Leaning chimneys are bothering me. Furthermore, I think the light of the shadowed part is too strongly "pushed".--Jebulon (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Small heath (Coenonympha pamphilus) P.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 12:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Rosie wait.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 12:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There are plenty of FPs that are not used in articles. One of the guidelines (above) says: 7.Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project. --cart-Talk 13:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW, Assuming the case must be encyclopedic to be here. There are articles that have not been written yet and what does this mean? Means that any image is potentially encyclopedic until proven otherwise and as the future is impossible to demonstrate, any image will be potentially encyclopedic forever. --The Photographer 13:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Perfectly stated, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good BW image. True, it doesnt have to be used, as en.Wiki do. Must be used they ask, i respond: should we wait if it get some FP star and then replace older one !? Maybe more logical. About shot, i wish it was focused on left eye, i see is more nearby. --Mile (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Color banding, notes added. --Ivar (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  Done --The Photographer 15:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nope, it's still there. --Ivar (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because of bad banding at full size. But as for Charles' question: Usage in articles may be relevant to VIC, but I think it's irrelevant to FPC. Here, my understanding (and someone should correct me if I'm missing something) is that we are supposed to judge based solely on our comprehensive evaluations of the photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful portrait but the posterization is just too obvious. -- King of ♠ 02:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per other supporters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The mood outweighs any technical flaws for me. And it may not be used now, but someday someone will create an article on "lingerie advertising" or something along those lines, and then this will be perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There is already an article where this would be appropriate for about 50% of the audience... ;) cart-Talk 16:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Daniel Case. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 09:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Banding, indeed. A pity.--Jebulon (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice girl, but poor BW conversion: too strong banding. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Banding is the unique problem that I don't know how fix and from a time ago I have the same problem with my pictures too. Some idea how fix it? --The Photographer 15:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • On PS : Filter → Filter gallery → Brush stroke → Spatter. I know its works good on color, beware there will be difference with "unselected", which you done latter with some clone etc. --Mile (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 12:24:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ayuntamiento de Cádiz, España, 2015-12-08, DD 03-05 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 12:19:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Millars -- Millars (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Millars (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some perspective correction needed. Charles (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    Charles:   Done, I also increased the crop on the top Poco2 19:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks like the tower is falling backwards (probably not fixable, because shooting pont was too close). --Ivar (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    Ivar: Agree, that's though going to be hard to fix if it becomes a must Poco2 19:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Is this an optical illusion? I didn't notice it until I read Ivar's comment, and now I am having trouble unseeing it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective distortion gives that illusion and it's too much for me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost forgot it, you have my support, Millars! :) Thank you for the nom!! Poco2 20:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Some perspective corrected thanks, but the tower is still falling over backwards! Charles (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice and festive. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 04:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:VKG Ojamaa kaevandus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 12:12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info created by Kaupo Kikkas - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Estonia is the biggest oil shale producer and user. VKG Ojamaa mine.
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good shot, i think you should write what bagger is that. --Mile (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done --cart-Talk 15:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Good job. I thought its Volvo, saw that strange word behind, but i wouldnt bet its a brand. --Mile (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If you look below the window of the cabin it says "", that + the "ST7" also on the loader wasn't very hard to Google. ;) --cart-Talk 17:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I want a bit more high resolution for this kind of photo though. --Laitche (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 17:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good, interesting picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice detail, especially considering what had to be challenging lighting conditions. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support More than good, in many points (the reflexion of the wheel...), excellent management of the light in a hostile environment. I like it very much and thanks Kruusamägi for this choice. A pity this picture is not by a "Commoner"...--Jebulon (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:California sea lion in La Jolla (70568).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 11:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Otariidae (Eared seals)
  •   Info Created and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by W.carter.
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 11:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the gull facing away ruins it for me. Charles (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. The gull is definitely a negative but still this is a very majestic picture of the sea lion. -- King of ♠ 02:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the way the gull's pose echoes the seal's. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good moment; support per others. Sure, if the gull's head were straight, it would be even better, but in no way do I think its head being turned away kills the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a version with them facing the same way and one of them chatting, but the sea lion is not this magnificent in those. I could also add that this is down by the shore and not in a zoo. cart-Talk 10:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Your points are well-taken. It's not that the gull facing the viewer is the magic missing piece no matter what, it's just that in this particular picture, I think the gull looking straight ahead might make the picture even better. But this was the moment available to the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I feel a little gauche supporting an image I took. And yet.. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  13:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey "FPC newbie", if you feel strange about being proud of your own pic, you can always see it as supporting my skill in selecting and nominating nice photos.   Your photography proficiency has certainly improved and I suspect this is just the first of many noms selected from your photos. Well done! --cart-Talk 14:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, far be it from me to question a user of such fine judgment and taste as yourself. It would practically be disrespectful for me not to support, in that case. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  14:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --The body is on the dark side, but still special to me. Famberhorst (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Aix galericulata (male in all his glory).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 01:27:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 07:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Aix galericulata (Male), Richmond Park, UK - May 2013.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 01:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 07:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds#Order_:_Anseriformes_.28Waterfowl.29

File:2015-07-27 20-51-30 Macroglossum-stellatarum.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 21:58:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info created and uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm having trouble with the idea of supporting a picture with this amount of unsharpness in the frame, although a survey of other pictures of this butterfly moth on Commons seems to show that it's very hard to get a clear picture of it. But I don't know if that's a sufficient reason to feature this photo. Could someone please help me understand why it would be appropriate for this to be more than a VI (and QI, since it is one)? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Since these little moths are reported to flap their wings about 70 - 80 times each second, I think this is about as sharp as the wings can get in flight. But looking at some other pics of this moth, there can be more interesting angles (that face!) and better backgrounds. cart-Talk 11:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Great capture, but I'm not sure it's FP. Charles (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Ikan and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong   Support. One of the best documentation of the typical behavior of Hummingbird hawk-moth which has the ability to fly from flowers to flowers for hours without taking any rest. It is very difficult to chase this subject. So we need wait near a flower with the camera ready expecting it will come. I remember a previous FP which barely passed; but performed very well in COM:POTY. Jee 03:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Egileta - Camino GR25 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 19:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, nothing special for FP for me. The colors are stolen too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support B&W, a great way to focus on lines, Ingmar Bergman would have loved this. --cart-Talk 20:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per cart.   lNeverCry 22:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This is photography! the old school way... Yann (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alchemist-hp. -- King of ♠ 04:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent B&W photograph. --Code (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I was not expecting to support this photo, when I saw the thumbnail. However, at full size, just look at the light and shade of the road. The other supporters are right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Alchemist.--Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per cart, it's nice for films but a bit weak impression for an individual photo, imho. --Laitche (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart; I like the lines and the monochrome makes you focus on them. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose schlechte SW-Umwandlung. --Ralf Roleček 08:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    Translation for Ralfs comment: "poor BW conversion". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
      Question OK, wie könnte ich die Umwandlung verbessern? How could I improve the conversion? --Basotxerri (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Berteroa incana - Syrphus ribesii - Tallinn.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 17:37:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mary Cassatt - The Child's Bath - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 03:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016 Pałac w Łomnicy 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 21:11:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Rio Tagus (ship, 1979), Sète 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 17:25:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose The pic is more about the sunsetrise than the ship. The composition looks sort of awkward, the ship's reflection is cut (perhaps an upright or square format would have been better) and the buildings have unfortunately ended up like two giant containers stored on deck. I know how hard it is to get a "clean" shot of a ship in port so I'm truly sorry for coming down like this on this pic.--cart-Talk 10:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Small correction: It's a sunrise. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
My bad, sorry.   Corrected. --cart-Talk 15:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 11:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. --Karelj (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I reluctantly agree with cart's points about the composition, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel (1,839 m) in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Lago Covel (1,841 m).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 06:40:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kyoto Station November 2016 -02.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 05:51:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • You're most welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very Le Cinquième Élément. We are really enjoying your trip to Japan and it seems like it might bag you some stars too. :) --cart-Talk 09:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The yellow thing is offputting... Charles (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I didn't think of that as a possible issue. To me, it provides a good starting point for the photo and a good counterpoint to the large open area and staircase in the distance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Could you fix the CA on the far right? -- King of ♠ 15:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the hint - I'd take care of that myself.... but since I'm currently away from the computer which I'm doing my image processing with for another couple of days, could please anyone else give it a shot? Thanks a lot! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] The two versions look absolutely identical to me when I toggle between them, and yes, I did clear my cache. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That's odd. There's a noticeable difference (far right, top) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)