Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Bilbao - Museo Marítimo - Cadena 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2017 at 16:11:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016.06.10.-04-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Plattbauch-junges Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2017 at 14:54:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

my comment not relevant now thanks to Jee's sharp eyes. Charles (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support; but I wish a bit more space in both sides as here. (BTW, this is a young male; not female. See the difference in anal appendages.) Jee 16:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  Info You are absolutely right. It is a young male. I didn't reckon with it at all. I'll change it. --Hockei (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  Done Thanks to Jee! --Hockei (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Heiliggrabkapelle -- 2017 -- 0008-14.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2017 at 14:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Stiftskirche -- 2017 -- 7162-8.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2017 at 14:26:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Do you think a rotation will improve the image? There is no top and no bottom. --XRay talk 18:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Praha Spanish Synagogue Dome 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2017 at 12:37:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Colaptes auratus auratus, female, Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin (crop).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2017 at 07:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Beskid Sądecki in winter 2016 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2017 at 06:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support winter is coming... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Martin is right, but I would have liked less beaten path and more misty mountains. When I look at a photo like this, I want to feel like I'm the only one seeing this. Here it is like I'm standing on a busy highway, it goes against the rest of the calm serene landscape. --cart-Talk 09:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Eristalinus quinquestriatus 1783.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2017 at 06:17:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Question - One request to Vengolis: Please add the category for the flowers in the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The compound eye may be spectacular, but the compo with the cut flowers bugs me. --cart-Talk 09:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:ASIV Slovenia 18 (24556573455).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 22:00:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I hope you don't mind if I paraphrase your argument to reflect how I read it: "Since other pictures that I didn't object to at the time are in my opinion as random and unspecial as this one, you should vote to feature this photo." Not a very strong argument or likely to convince anyone who's on the fence. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looking at the photos in the category this came from, there are portraits of people with much more interesting expressions. This guy looks far more fierce and he is only holding a pen, not a gun. Not to mention the spirit and spectacular element of fire in photos like this. --cart-Talk 09:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose its sharpless, we have many military shots, check some other military shots. --Mile (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment also note the metadata says it's PD but the commons license says CC. PumpkinSky talk 12:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination I possibly look for a better one, which is more sharp more special. Joobo (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Image:DR 50 3552.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 21:57:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Beech and ferns in Gullmarsskogen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 20:45:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info After a few days of rain during the first weeks of summer, this county almost explodes with fresh new green plants and even a natural area like Gullmarsskogen nature reserve looks like something from a garden catalogue. However, that will not last. Depending on how the summer turns out, it will all grow wild or dry up completely. I like the layers of fresh new leaves in this picture, with plants typical for a southwest Swedish forest. All by me, -- cart-Talk 20:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 20:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Green, green, green ... --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Superb. PumpkinSky talk 00:44, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info After looking at this on a better monitor I have tweaked the WB just a tiny bit. --cart-Talk 12:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I don't understand the picture, a lot of parts are not sharp? --Neptuul (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I deliberately set the aperture to f/5.6 and focused on getting the central branch of beech leaves sharp so that it would pop out from a softer background of greenery. Going for a higher aperture and getting everything sharp would have ruined the sense of layering it has now. An additional layering is made from the contrasting shapes and textures of the various foliage. --cart-Talk 13:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support *sigh* Forests. Normal me loves them, but for photographer me it's more like a nemesis – seems like I just can't figure out how to translate what I see into a picture. And then you come along and make it look so easy. Somehow you managed to bring structure into the chaos: vertical trunks in the top half; at the bottom the horsetails, the ferns and the foreground twig make some nice diagonals … Chapeau! --El Grafo (talk) 14:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per El Grafo. It is like the plants were arranged to give a pleasing combination of sizes and textures. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • There is actually a feature that has helped to "arrange" the plants; it's called "a stream". :) The ferns grow in one side of it, obscuring it, and the beeches on the other side. Glints of it are visible in this photo. Water is a great organizer in nature. --cart-Talk 17:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Clarinet buffet crampon rc prestige double dk6075c.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 20:00:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hondsrug, De Strubben-Kniphorstbosch 004.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 05:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pronghorn Yellowstone.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 00:46:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Yellowjacket on a bougainvillea.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 00:43:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Turret Arch through North Window.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2017 at 00:04:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info I have no permission to publish their faces. Besides I do not know their identities, so unfortunately I can not ask for permission now. Therefore I have blurred their faces for legal reasons. -- Wolf im Wald 11:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternative versionEdit

 

  •   Info This is a cropped version of the image above. -- Wolf im Wald 01:52, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thanks to Wolf im Wald for making this wonderful photo and offering it as an alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I definitely prefer this version. --Code (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this version too. Daphne Lantier 05:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 06:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ----Ermell (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Windows 2. --cart-Talk 08:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Clever shot. Charles (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't spot the face blurring. Charles (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 10:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The faces of the two people on the left seem to have been purposely blurred. That kind of editing is a hard line for me.--Peulle (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I have no permission to publish their faces. Besides I do not know their identities, so unfortunately I can not ask for permission now. Therefore I have blurred their faces for legal reasons. -- Wolf im Wald 11:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Wolf im Wald, there are no "legal reasons" to blur their faces. The law in the US permits photos of identifiable people to be taken and published and we have many thousands of such images on Commons. Nor is their, imo, any moral reason to do so as your image does not harm anyone's reputation. Consider my own photo of a railway station which contains hundreds of identifiable people. I do not wish to support this image while the people are blurred: they are in the photo and should be displayed properly and their presence gives scale to the subject. There's even a series in The Guardian newspaper called "That's me in the picture" where subjects celebrate their appearance in some famous photo, and often they were not aware the photo was taken, never mind were asked permission. A national park has people in it. Let's be happy about that rather than blur it out. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not know their nationality. In Germany, we have a different legal situation. Indeed German law allows you to publish images with recognizable people on it but only if there are at least 5 or 10 people on the image. If there are less than 5 people on the image it can quickly become a problem for the photographer. Maybe the people are Germans and I uploaded the image from Germany. I think in this case they could take me to court (in Germany). If I would be an US-citizen and the people on the image too, I would agree with your opinion. But this is a very popular location for tourists from all over the world and the legal situation of my country does not allow this, as far as I know. Do you understand my situation? Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 11:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm of the same opinion of Colin; this was a public place and people must be aware that images are taken in such places. As long as the people are not the subject (just caught on camera by coincidence), the photographer cannot be blamed. Cropping them out would be acceptable, but censoring images crosses the line IMO.--Peulle (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but per Peulle. That ruins this great picture. --Hockei (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe it would be better to clone the two people out of the image completely. Daphne Lantier 18:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
'LivioAndronico, did you ask Wolf im Wald permission to clone out the people? If not, then that's really disrespectful to alter his photo and especially to alter it while it is an FPC. To be honest, I'd prefer to see the people but without the blur, unless those people are friends of the photographer and have asked to be made unidentifiable. The US has no issues with photographing people in public places, and in fact there's a good chance they'll be happy to see their photos on Wiki in this case. It gives a sense of scale. Such a significant change requires pinging all previous voters, not just those who objected to the blurred faces (which I do also). I think you should consider reverting and asking first. -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course Colin I warned him, anyway I do not think that's your problem. And why ask if you believe, wrongly, to be right? Besides, the photo is here and visible to everyone. --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • To me the people were an important part of the composition and I'm considering changing my vote to oppose now. But first I'd like to hear if Wolf im Wald agrees with the editing done by LivioAndronico2013. The blurred faces were no big deal and I find it quite respectful to blur them regardless what the legal situation in the U.S. or elsewhere is. --Code (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought the people were quite recognizable despite a bit of blurring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted the change per Commons:Overwriting existing files. This official guideline requires you to ask first, not just tell them afterwards you've made significant alterations to their photo while it was their nomination at FPC. If Wolf im Wald is happy with the edit he can restore it, though I caution that really he then needs to ping everyone who has voted here. Livio, you know full well that photographers here can generally do a better job making edits to their raw files than anyone else can with the JPG. This is Wolf im Wald's photo and you should respect that. -- Colin (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the version with the people because they are a good scale for the size of the arch and they improve the composition in my opinion. I blurred them moderately not to hurt the picture. I think they are not clearly recognizable but they are blurred so moderately that you only can realize that in full view if you look out for their faces. Therefore I think the current version is a good compromise between these aspects. -- Wolf im Wald 11:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose solely for registering my opposition to face blurring. -- KennyOMG (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:San Gennaro's chapel - Dome (Naples).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 21:38:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Domenichino completed the majority of the frescoes in the chapel. He painted the four pinnacles: Pledge made by the Neapolitans in 1527,Meeting of Saint Gennaro with Christ in the Heavenly Glory, Virgin intercedes for Naples and Patronage of Saints Gennaro, Agrippina and Agnello Abate. He also painted the story of the life of San Gennaro in the three lunettes (1633) and in the arches. The four large altarpieces painted with oil on copper by Domenichino represent: the Beheading of Saint Januarius, the Miracle of the infirm healed by the oil lamp, the Infirm at the tomb of the Saint and Resurrection of a dead man. Domenichino died suddenly on April 6, 1641. A few months later, he was replaced by another follower of Carracci who was then in Rome, the Emilian, Giovanni Lanfranco. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 22:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support square ? --Mile (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support And 7. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support 8... --Pudelek (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Παναγιά Σκοπιανή 1957.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 21:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by C messier - uploaded by C messier - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is my favorite photograph of mine from Serifos. The whitewashed chapel with the characteristic blue dome with a sandy beach at the background, is IMHO what could summarise the islands of Cyclades the best. I hope that you find it beautifull enough to overcome the unsharpness caused by the (inevitable) heat haze (it was more than 30°C hot, with the camera pointing downhill).
  •   Support -- C messier (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I understand the heat haze, but I think that's a bit overexposed, and the water is noisy Ezarateesteban 22:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I find this too noisy for an FP landscape photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ezarate, Ikan Kekek: I denoised and also fixed some tilt issues. --C messier (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not a big improvement to my eyes and certainly not enough to change my vote. I can understand an unsharp background and can even tolerate unsharp foreground in a great macro photo of some small insect, but this is a landscape photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I am neutral still neutral Ezarateesteban 14:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Ikan. Daphne Lantier 18:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Not sufficiently wowed by the composition. It is a bit random whether one's favourite memories translate to photos that others pick up on. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Καινούργιο Χωριό Κρήτης 2216.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 21:01:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by C messier - uploaded by C messier - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I find something irresistible with this otherwise ordinary abandoned house lying in mainland Crete, which features of an exterior oven. It also feels like it can tell a short history of the Greek countryside, which was largely abandoned after the first post war decades and only recently there has been a try to return, which fell on to the economic crisis (depicted here by the unfinished renovation work).
  •   Support -- C messier (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice ruin Ezarateesteban 22:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An interesting subject but a fairly ordinary photo so just QI imo. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Too much going on to really be able to focus on one aspect, and the light's kind of dull. Maybe a tighter frame on just some of it might work. Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting subject, but the cables ruin the mood. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Orisol - Ermita de Santikurutz 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 18:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Spain
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:22, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition doesn't have wow for me, the light is flat, contrast is low and I'm not seeing a whole lot of detail.--Peulle (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mostly per Peulle though I disagree about the contrast. There's an awful lot of leaves and stones which makes it busy. I'm not sure including this much tree-leaves is great for the composition. And some golden light would help compare to midday. -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Peulle, hi Colin, I think you're right. As this place has certain potential, I'll go back there and will try with better light... --Basotxerri (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Basotxerri (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Nørre Vorupør beach, 2017-04-14 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 12:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info A high-resolution view of this sandy beach in North West Denmark. Not as warm as Martin's Maldives photos, but plenty to see if you zoom in and observe all the people doing their own thing. FYI there is another FP of this beach: File:Nørre Vorupør Coast one third sky 2012-11-18.jpg. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderfully detailed! I was hoping for some Martin Parr style beach action but Danes seem always so terribly behaved. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme 📞 13:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 13:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support You enjoyed a better weather than me...--Jebulon (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really? A photo of a beach should be a FP? For me nothing special. Nothing more QI. I'm sorry. --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love Danish beaches. This picture reminds me of many happy days in my childhood. --Code (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • And childhood memories would be a justification for FP? Like facebook .... I did not know --LivioAndronico (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • So what makes a picture featurable in your eyes? I'm curious. --Code (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Composition,Interest of the subject,Useful for the project etc....for you? Your childhood?--LivioAndronico (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The overall impression of a picture. Basically quality, composition, subject, originality. Not so much the usefulness for a certain project. I find much of what a makes good picture here. The quality is very high, the picture gives a good impression of the size of the beach, the composition is more than average (look at the coastline, the clouds, the people and the two ships). It's very documentary because it shows the Danish beach the way Danish beaches usually look like (colours, weather and so on) as far as I can remember from my childhood. Certainly one of our finest pictures. We recently promoted some pictures by Martin Falbisoner (which deserved the star of course). They also were nothing but "a photo of a beach" and you didn't complain. I don't really understand your voting pattern. --Code (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • And I do not understand yours, we are equal!--LivioAndronico (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course the discussion had to end that way. As always. --Code (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I have been there a lot of times, my grandfather was a fisherman here in a rowingboat. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Livioandronico. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose and nobody mentioned third croping, its much better. --Mile (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC) p.S. Sky to 1/3
    • Cropping so the horizon is at the 2/3 point means that the sky contains a greater proportion of cloud and loses much of the blue sky above. I'm not sure the proportion change affects the composition one way or the other much, but the loss of so much blue makes the picture less sunny. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Might be, but if you would put both together, i think croped would be more interesting. --Mile (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I have put them together to judge. I do appreciate crop suggestions, and often make them myself, so I know a picture can be made stronger by removing parts. But here I think it changes the sky from "blue with some clouds" to "cloudy with some blue" and that's not the mood I want to suggest nor does it best represent the weather conditions at the time. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, a well-done photo of a beach that shows it need not be a tropical one, or even a warm one, to be a good one. Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really nice. --Lošmi (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:61-220-5012 Dzhuryn Waterfall 1 RB.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 11:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by rbrechko - uploaded by rbrechko - nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 13:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   mild oppose I don't know. The image appears overly dark/underexposed, the WB is too cold, and colors are too saturated. Maybe you can rework the file from your raw? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - it's a beautiful image - the long exposure works really well on the cascading waterfalls, but at a nominal cost of the foreground. Atsme 📞 15:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Beautiful waterfall, but the light in much of the rest of the photo feels diffuse to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Martin & Ikan. Daphne Lantier 18:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose WB too cool, per Martin (waterfalls should not be tinged blue in the absence of a blue sky above, and even then not this much) and background is too unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Giant tiger land snail (Achatina achatina).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 09:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  •   Info These land snails are huge (see the photo with a hand for scale) and have to be protected as my guide said they are very tasty.
    All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - escar-GO!! Atsme 📞 13:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting animal but the flat illumination by direct flashlight ruins every mood--Ermell (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell. --C messier (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lighting too harsh, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Victor Hugo buste marbre Musée Rodin S.00464 Paris.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2017 at 08:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by w:Auguste Rodin - the rest by me -- Jebulon (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A not so big, but stunning work of art. This is a marble head of Victor Hugo, sculpted by Auguste Rodin, 1889. As it is very detailed, one ca n see how the artist worked. On display at the Musée Rodin in Paris, France. Original and transparent background versions available in file page, where one can find a complete description as well.-- Jebulon (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not particularly fond of neither Rodin nor Hugo - but this picture is great. And yes, a limited DOF is a feature, not a bug... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support- Price Zero|talk 16:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The quality is very good but I'm not sure about "wow" factor. Should be interesting to see if anybody opposes because of that.--Peulle (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I thank you for support, but I'm not sure I appreciate the comment. Maybe you should not ask for oppose votes this way... It is just the bust of one of the most famous writers in the world by one of the most famous sculptor in the world. I find it excellent, very powerful and dynamic. That's my own wow factor. We don't have many FP of sculptures here in Commons, and I don't want to nominate my "Thinker" you can judge in QIC...--Jebulon (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. I find it odd to see a certain lack of appreciation for Rodin in this thread; my father considered him one of the greatest sculptors of all time. For whatever it's worth, so do I, and the Musee Rodin would appear in a group of museums just under the greatest multiple-artist museums (the Louvre and the Orsay) if a friend were asking me for recommendations of art museums to visit while in Paris. A photo that clearly shows these kinds of details is valuable and fully comparable to photos of great paintings that we've featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
    I've always been bugged by the low forehead of his "Thinker". A true thinker should have a high and broad forehead...like this chick I know...   Daphne Lantier 05:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • OK. But in all seriousness, I'd no sooner criticize the content or execution of Rodin's compositions than those of Michelangelo, Donatello, Brancusi or Giovanni and Andrea Pisano - the very best sculptors whose names I can think of (of course, there were equally great ones in ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, China, etc., etc.). To me, it's like saying Beethoven should have done something other than what he did in any of his symphonies - I just wouldn't think of suggesting that. Instead, I love them as they are and try to understand them through analysis and just listen and appreciate them. Rodin's politics are another matter, as he was unfortunately and shockingly an anti-Dreyfusard. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • When I stated that "I'm not particularly fond of neither Rodin nor Hugo," it was in fact politics that I had in mind. But this is not the place to elaborate on that. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: If you want shocking, Victor Hugo had sex with more than 3000 prostitutes in his lifetime, and he wrote all of his works while completely naked.   Daphne Lantier 18:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • He was lucky he didn't get syphilis. Amazing how many men of culture patronized prostitutes in those days, when syphilis was incurable and the attempts at treatment - with salts of white mercury - were sometimes worse than the disease. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI and possibly VIC, but I'm not wowed by a standard studio photo of a sculpture. Daphne Lantier 18:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not much different from one, or, as we say in the US, "same difference"... Daphne Lantier 19:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • As far as I know as author, I can say that it is whatever you want, but a "standard studio photo of a sculpture"... by the way, have a look to the same object photographied by the museum (link in file page), and compare ! For me, no tripod, through a glass, complicated background etc... Respectfully, the reviewer completely missed the point (but cannot admit this anymore, of course it is to late now...) and no mater our tastes about Rodin and Hugo as persons--Jebulon (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support One of my fondest memories of any visit to an art museum was the special reception for attendees at Wikimania 2015 at the Soumaya, which started (as most visits to the Soumaya do) with the sixth floor and its largest collection of Rodins outside France. So having a featured picture of a Rodin here on Commons, taken by a Wikipedian, brings this full circle.

    Yes, by itself, it's just a nice picture of a bust. But digitizations of great art here on Commons done by us instead of the institutions (which may not always be free images) have not always worked out, and for Jebulon to have done as well as he did with a three-dimensional bust as opposed to a painting or other two-dimensional work is in my opinion worthy a featured status. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support I may not adore the bust itself (he looks a bit mean), but making such a striking photo of a totally white sculpture in the scant light of a museum deserves an FP. --cart-Talk 09:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:HVB-Tower Munich, June 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2017 at 17:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support ----Ermell (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 10:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - impressive geometry Atsme 📞 13:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Big wow factor here. :) I'm not super happy with the detail on the right side tower, but I'm following the guidelines: "Given sufficient "wow factor" and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality.". --Peulle (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Desierto de Lut, Irán, 2016-09-22, DD 44-49 HDR PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2017 at 14:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view during sunset of Dasht-e Loot, in English "Emptiness desert", located in the provinces of Kerman and Sistan-Baluchistan, Iran. This place is pretty special for being the spot on the Earth where the highest temperature was ever measured (70 °C or 159 °F) and since July 2016 a UNESCO World Heritage Site. All by me, Poco2 14:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 14:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 17:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit creepy but wow-y. --cart-Talk 18:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent panorama, best at full size. I really like the ripply dunes and the interesting rock outcroppings. The pastel colors of dusk complete the package. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 10:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Atsme 📞 13:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the colors ... sort of reminds me of the cover of the Moody Blues' Seventh Sojourn. Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Théâtre (façade) de La Roche-sur-Yon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2017 at 13:05:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Selbymay - uploaded by Selbymay - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kasir (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 13:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but the subject and the photography isn't exceptional enough for FP. Just a QI. -- Colin (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good QI but not a FP for me--Ermell (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. A well-done front view, but there are so many other neoclassical buildings with colonnades and pediments that this would have to be a very exceptional example to make FP purely as a front view. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per others. Daphne Lantier 18:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Battery East.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 22:00:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Maroon Bells at sunrise, Aspen Colorado.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 18:40:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States
  •   Info created by Lorie Shaull on Flickr (Lashaull) - uploaded by MB298 - nominated by MB298 -- MB298 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MB298 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The foreground needs some more brightness, otherwise a good photo. The description is completely missing and a geotag is needed, too. --Code (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Code. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Code. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love the way the shadows work to frame the reflection in the water. It's a difficult enough shot to not blowout the sky while still capturing the reflection. Kudos. Atsme 📞 13:47, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I don't get this attitude towards shadows. Shadows are dark, that's what they are. Sometimes I question whether people look at images full size ot just say "too dark" based on thumbnails (which are always much darker than the image itself). Anyway Neutral because quality is not the best. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @KennyOMG: Of course I only vote after having looked at each image in full size. Hope this answers your question. --Code (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Thanks so very much for the nomination MB298 Info about the shot, it was sunrise, with much of the landscape in shadows so in post-processing, I kept it that way. When I looked up other photos of Maroon Bells shots there were a lot that were over processed. I was going for a lighter touch for what it looked like at the time. I do take mild exception to the "not the best" comment though KennyOMG.The quality of your comment is not the best, not helpful & not productive. None-the-less appreciate all the comments & taking the time to take a look and comment! (Lashaull Lashaull (talk)
  • @Lashaull: Thank you for giving some information about the picture. I think very little brightening of the shadows were needed to improve it. Could you consider adding a location tag of the place and some technical information about the shot to the description page? Regards --Code (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lashaull:, if you're quoting me please do so by the letter: "not the best". If you want to get offended at an objective observation, well, I guess that's our prerogative but that doesn't help anyone. You should also note the fact that I voted neutral on your pic as I actually like it enough not to oppose on the issue of general softness and lack of details in the shadows. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Half geopende bloem van Rhododendron ponticum.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 17:54:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Common brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni) female underside.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 16:12:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Carretera al monasterio Noravank, Armenia, 2016-10-01, DD 55-59 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 13:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Panoramic view of the vanishing road through the Amaghu valley near the 13th-century monastery of Noravank, Armenia. The narrow gorge, located near Yeghegnadzor and 122 km from the capital, Yerevan, was eroded by the Amaghu River. All by me, Poco2 13:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 13:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lots of artefacts in the sky, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    Peulle: if the reason why you opposed were the artifacts, they are gone. That's an easy fix. Thanks for the hint, I didn't see them. Poco2 17:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, everything else about the photo is wonderful, but for FP I feel the sky should not have these. Sadly, I still see them scattered in bands across the sky, although it's not as bad as the first version. I'm not sure what caused them or how it can be fixed completely.--Peulle (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
      Comment - I see them, too, but they're so subtle in such a large photo that I think it's OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, there is still banding in the sky (I had the same problem in some of my panoramas and I didn't succeed in removing it, even with new stiching. At the moment I have no solution to propose, perhaps someone other can help you). --Llez (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    Llez: I've uploaded a new version to address the banding. Please, let me know what you think. I applied 2 filters on the sky, a scatter (could have been a noise filter too) and a gaussian blur filter. Poco2 11:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

*  Comment I see it too. much better now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK now --Llez (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Makes me want to know what's beyond the end of the road. Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    Daniel, that is easy to tell, here it is. Poco2 18:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme 📞 15:46, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:360° vom Schesaplana-Massiv.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 11:27:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info Panoramic view over the Rätikon mountain range, taken on the trail from the Schesaplana to the Mannheim Hut. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 11:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very impressive view and excellent quality regarding exposure and detail. Surely one of our finest. --Code (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I was wowed when I saw it on QIC some days ago and it's still wowing! --Basotxerri (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I tried finding something wrong with this but failed. The depth is amazing, the sharpness good all across the range, no errors that I can see. You can even see the villages deep in the valleys below. Truly it lives up to the designation: "one of the best images on Commons".--Peulle (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Exemplary.--Ermell (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 05:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 09:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Super! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll pine   for more like this. Daniel Case (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yep. --cart-Talk 18:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong   Support per others. So many great details! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - ...and the hiker gives it magnanimous perspective! Atsme 📞 15:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Detail of Wasserglockenbrunnen, Munich, June 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 08:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Fountains
  •   Info Detail of Wasserglockenbrunnen, also known as Wasserpilzbrunnen on Frauenplatz, Munich, at night. It was designed by Bernhard Winkler in 1972. I'm absolutely sure pretty much nobody in Munich could identify this fountain as it's neither important nor spectacular - though situated very prominently. I also had to google its name(s). What I like about the picture is its abstract, almost graphic concentration on details, accentuated by its selective focus range and tight crop. Note that although the image may appear deliberately desaturated, it is in fact not. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Special. --XRay talk 10:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose due to light management (the brighter areas are gone), the subject is original, but the composition not stricking (I know that spot) and only one item is in focus Poco2 11:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, of course the lights are "gone". I mean we're talking about illuminating, bright spotlights. In the night. There wouldn't be anything left to rescue in post at all, not even by applying HDR techniques. I guess it's, as always, a matter of taste. I like both the chiaroscuro as well as the limited DOF. I'd also like to defend the composition that concentrates on one element, the sharp one in the front, but also presents its "natural habitat" in the background. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting! Jee 08:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am not convinced by the composition, the crop is too tight. Furthermore, most areas are out of focus --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Poco and Uoaei1. There is a featurable image possible of this subject, but it is not this one. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - agree with Jee in that it's interesting! ++ for creativity and level of difficulty in capturing a technically challenging image. Atsme 📞 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Philharmonie, Berlin, 170518, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 06:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Blue hour shot of the south west facade of Berliner Philharmonie (concert hall). The architecture of the concert hall was always a little bit controversial here in Berlin but I somehow like it, especially when we have such a perfect blue hour as it was when I took this photograph. This is a multirow HDR panorama made of 63 single exposures. Before I decided to take a photograph of this view I was walking around the building several times. It was a little bit challenging to find the right perspective because it was very crowdy that evening and there were cars all around the building and I had to search quite a while until I found a place to avoid both the cars and the people to appear in the picture. The east side of the building is even more interesting to photograph but there are construction works going on and as usual in Berlin you never know when they will end or even if they will be finished at all. --Code (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm impressed. The noise in the sky is not worth mentioning, but are the dark spots in the sky in some cases dust spots? I don't know. But I'm willing to feature the photo as is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ikan Kekek. I don't think there are any dust spots left. In my workflow I remove the dust spots first in each RAW file and then stitch them together (it's even harder to remove them in the final picture). In larger cities there appear differences in the brightness of the sky which are caused by different light sources all around. They can look like dust or clouds, I think. --Code (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good work.--Ermell (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support fine picture! I know the building's illuminated with yellow light but could it be that the WB here is just a tiny bit too yellowish? Not a dealbreaker anyway. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Martin. I was playing around with the WB for a while and in the end I think this version was the most true. Cooling the WB down any more would make it look very blueish and the sky would change to a cyanic tone. --Code (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support :-) --XRay talk 11:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I love the overall ambiance. PumpkinSky talk 11:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment A nice one. I have though the impression that it would benefit from an adjustment of the aspect ratio. It looks a bit squeezed everywhere (not only the cars on the left, that's obvious). Poco2 11:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: Thank you, Poco. I think you don't mean I should change the crop, do you? The picture is equivalent to a ~5mm lens in a rectilinear projection, that makes each sides look somewhat stretched of course. I could change the projection but then the proportions wouldn't be true any more. Any other idea? --Code (talk) 06:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not talking about the crop or the type of panorama projection, but rather about the aspect ration (relationship between height and width) of the whole picture. If, let's say, 70% of the picture is squeezed in the vertical axle then an overall aspect ratio could help, I guess. It's is just an idea. The picture is anyhow really nice. Poco2 13:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I wish some more normal color tones... seems like HDR plastique. --Mile (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love the colours! -- Wolf im Wald 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gorgeous. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Atsme 📞 15:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Berlin Hauptbahnhof, Ostseite, 170430, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 05:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Berlin main station in the early morning light as seen from east. I went there each sunday morning again and again hoping for a perfect reflection. I tried different lenses and techniques (long exposure, different views, HDR and so on) until I finally got this capture, which is a multirow panorama made of 15 single exposures. It was very tricky and took me a long time to get them stitched properly as there are almost no control points in the water. Some might complain about the dark foreground: This is caused by the shadow of another building (HumboldtHafenEins, I think we don't have any pictures of it on Commons, yet) I was standing in front of (the sun came from behind me). All by me. --Code (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Code (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Superb! - --Ermell (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support :-) --XRay talk 11:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 11:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good light and good compo, though it's a pity the water at bottom is a bit dark. Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 08:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Breathtaking. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kasir (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Großartig! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - nice!! Sharp focus brings the smaller details to life. Atsme 📞 15:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2017 at 03:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info Leptosia nina, Psyche, Wandering Snowflake, is a small butterfly of the family Pieridae found in Asia. All by Jkadavoor -- Jee 03:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jee 03:40, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 04:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really striking as a thumbnail, and just as good at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 12:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Quality is perfect for FP, Jee, but you already have an FP of this species taken on the same day File:Leptosia nina-Kadavoor-2017-05-04-003.jpg - is there a significant difference? If not, why nominate another? Charles (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    Hi Charles, I expected this question while preparing this nom, and this is my thoughts: I see not much similarity in these two pictures other than same species. The previous FP is a classic profile photo for the Wikipedia; this is an artistic composition without giving emphasize to subject details. Here the light is also special; the butterfly is warming up by posing against the morning sun. The diffused flash ensure no details hidden under shadows even though shooting against the sun. I will not nominate this photo as the composition is very much similar to existing FP. (Sorry for the late reply; electricity and Internet went down in the huge Monsoon rain while I was typing a reply yesterday. Still no electricity though Internet and telephone came back.) Jee 04:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As it seems that FP voters are happy with more than one nomination, that's OK with me. Charles (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Tokyo Metro and JR East at Ochanomizu, Tokyo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 19:48:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Something a bit different, for a change: Tokyo Metro meets JR East at Ochanomizu, Tokyo.
  •   Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support urban chaos wonderfully captured --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There's a lot going on and normally this is not my kind of photography but somehow it works for me. Don't really know why, but I could look at it for hours. The shadow in the foreground is a pity but I suppose it's not possible to avoid it? --Code (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment The shadow sure isn't optimal and generally I would prefer the scene to be lit better, but due to the orientation of the scene you'd unfortunately need midnight sun. I don't think it gets much better than this (possibly a bit better in June instead of beginning of May) --Kabelleger (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The photo looks very restless but very interesting at the same time. I would crop the sky with the uninteresting windows of the right house above because then the scene you want to show would be more in the focus of the viewer. Otherwise great. --Hockei (talk) 09:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I don't consider the windows uninteresting because they reflect several other buildings. --Kabelleger (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Above is no reflection in the windows. But it's your decision if you keep it or not. I only said my opinion. BTW, The photo looks very restless ... wasn't meant negative. --Hockei (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Doesn't have anything striking from a purely aesthetic point of view but boy does it work in giving you the feeling of a city constantly active. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support has EV - put a copy in a time capsule. Atsme 📞 16:01, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This photo took a while to grow on me. It's a really interesting photograph, and I appreciate the artistry (or luck? but either way) involved in getting both trains in motion in the shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guanajuato pano1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:43:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   InfoGuanajuato is a city and the capital of the state of the same name. Situated in a narrow valley, most of its narrow and winding streets are alleys that cars cannot pass through, and some are long sets of stairs up the mountainsides. Many of the city’s thoroughfares are partially or fully underground. The historic center has numerous small plazas and colonial-era mansions, churches and civil constructions built using pink or green sandstone. Historically Guanajuato was an influential mining city that, in the 18th century, accounted for two-thirds of the world’s silver production. All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The shadow in the bottom is distractiong and the image needs a better stitching, in some areas it is tilted in one direction and in some other in the other direction. Quality, on the other side is very good. Poco2 18:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you mark/tag some zig-zag tilting areas please? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, Poco, I saw. Restitched from scratch, seems ok'ish now. Please mark if you see any errors still. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I added 3 notes, if you fix those areas, then you are good. Still, as mentioned, I find the areas in shadow too prominent, I'd probably crop the left side, as you couldn't anyhow capture the whole city from that spot and there is not much detail there to enjoy. What software do you use for the stitching? A template like {{Panorama}} would be pretty informative. Finally, I find the file size too big, going down from 30 to 12 MB wouldn't mean a lost of quality that you can perceive IMO (My camera delivers in a frame the same resolution like this panorama and I have played around with this variables often). Poco2 09:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
        • I recommend using 11/12 for Photoshop quality == 90% for Lightroom quality (Lightroom only has 13 steps like Photoshop -- the 0..100 levels are misleading). There really is little point in using 12 or 100% as the extra bytes aren't winning anything visible. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Since storage space is not an issue I'm using whatever I use for saves. And believe it or not, sometimes you can spot the diff between 90 or 98 (which is what I use). @Poco a poco: I ran into a weird problem where no matter what I do some images will be distorted and tilted after warping, have no idea how to fix it. If you encountred anything like this before and know how to fix I'd gladly take any advice. Anyhow withdrawing this one for now as it might not be fixed for some time. KennyOMG (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
            • When I asked about the SW you use my intention was to help. If I don't the tools you use I cannot say in general how you can improve your images. Photoshop/Lr would be problematic because you have not many possibilities to steer the stitching process, but this kind of tropics can be, indeed tricky. Poco2 21:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great job, but the shadow in front is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination for now until issues are fixed. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guildfordia yoka delicata 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:18:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Capivara(Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 17:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created and uploaded by Clodomiro Esteves Junior - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very good composition but too noisy IMO--Ermell (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Noise is acceptable and the image is really good. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • weak   Support a bit noisy and top crop could be improved --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent capture. Noise is not a big thing here and I think this is the perfect example of mitigating reasons. --Code (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others - the capybaras aren't too noisy. I admit to a bit of bias, in that I had pet guinea pigs as a child, so I like rodents, especially cute ones. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really a very nice composition and HEV. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose Per Ermell. --Hockei (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree, it's a bit noisy, but you cannot find such an scene in your garden posing for you. Great composition and acceptable quality for a 500 mm shot. Poco2 12:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell.--Peulle (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sharpness and noise. Charles (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose due to noise. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The scene compensates the noise for me - but some denoising would be good --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Huge wow / cute factor. Noise doesn't detract at all IMO. - Benh (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. Not sure it is reasonable to expect a sharper image at 500mm with consumer gear. -- Colin (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support How frigging cute is that?!! It's one of those shots us wildlife photogs dream about!! Atsme 📞 16:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Arara Azul no Pantanal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 17:26:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created and uploaded by Leonardo Ramos - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support New category: macro-bird-photography! (Focal plane seems to be a bit closer than the eyes but because of that most of the body feathers are in perfect focus and show wonderful detail so it's not a prob I think.) -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good, but please fix the categories, unless I'm mistaken, this is a photo of a bird not a park. --cart-Talk 20:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a kind of halo along the left border of the wing on the right side --Llez (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support per fixing halo noted by Llez. Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Ditto to what Daniel said above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support that would become full support if the image is lighten up, it's a bit too dark. Poco2 12:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cute! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Regretfully since it is a great photo. But it has been saved with ProPhotoRGB colourspace, which is totally unsuitable for JPG or internet use (see User:Colin/BrowserTest for why the majority of our users -- mobile -- will see extremely bad colours). The halo noted seems I guess to be a crudely applied mask perhaps to reduce sharpening-noise or to apply NR or increase exposure, and which is overlapping the edge. I think we would expect our regulars to do that more carefully. -- Colin (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:EstatuaFliaAlzaga-jun2017edited.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 12:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Highlights fixed, thanks @Llez: --Ezarateesteban 01:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately, they now look posterized. Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Reprocessed Ezarateesteban 03:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Heiliggrabkapelle -- 2017 -- 0015-21.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 07:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There were lights behind the wall and the paintings are pale. --XRay talk 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah, so they've faded. I'll go ahead and support. Nice job given the conditions.PumpkinSky talk 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Nevertheless I'll check for improvements. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 15:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 17:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany

File:Tugboats Boss and Svitzer Hymer leaving Lahälla 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 19:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info Tugboats Svitzer Hymer and Boss in Brofjorden setting out to assist a tanker entering the fjord and the oil port at Preemraff oil refinery. The fjord is so deep that the tankers have no problem going right up to the berths and cliffs along the shore, but when the wind is strong (as it was this day), an empty tanker lying high in the water can drift when it's going at a low speed. That's where the tugboats come in. The tugboats are stationed at Lahälla, across the fjord from the oil port. I was there to photograph Ryxö island for sv-wiki, so I had a front row seat and camera ready when the boats set out. I got a whole series of shots and I like this one best because of the relatively clean background and also because the distance from the camera makes the two boats appear in more similar size in the photo. There is something very wow-y seeing such powerful boats making good speed across the water, even if you can't hear the sound in the photos. All by me, -- cart-Talk 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I can almost hear them. Atsme 📞 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good arrangement, with uncluttered background. -- Colin (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Love it, especially all the rich vibrant blues. PumpkinSky talk 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry, but the focus is a bit too soft for me, especially on the top half of the left boat.--Peulle (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Please don't use the {{weak oppose}} or similar templates as the Bot can't count these. Use the piped version of {{o}} and {{s}} instead. I have fixed that for you now. :) As for the focus, well, in this case it was either sharper boats when they were closer but with a cluttered background, or boats further away with better background but softer focus. See the series on the file page. I chose the better compo. --cart-Talk 12:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that about the bot. Thanks.--Peulle (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Photographers don't often take a stern view of boats (I guess they like them too much  ). Good for you for making this one work so well. And how helpful that one of them has its IMO painted on its stern! Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! The stern is sort of the "business end" of a tugboat so more interesting than the bow. I also like the "going away on a mission" feeling you get from a stern view. --cart-Talk 20:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Elvis Presley, Delbert Sonny West, and Jerry Schilling meeting Richard Nixon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 15:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Ollie Atkins, chief White House photographer, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Grainy, but cannot be retaken... I think this one is the best picture of the meeting. I did very little restoration. Please tell me if you think more is needed. -- Yann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - the picture made me a little weak-kneed....(seeing Elvis of course)...Atsme 📞 20:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It has a certain wow factor, but the grain is disturbing. I know it was 1970, but the technology back then wasn't good enough to get a decent shot inside the White House? It just looks like the guy grabbed any old camera and took a snapshot rather than preparing with a proper camera and a flash. I'm not opposing because of said wow factor, but I just can't bring myself to support it either.--Peulle (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Oval was as ell lit during the everyday business as you'd think it was, meaning for simple hand held shots they had to use fast films -> grain. Also if you compare it to the Elvis-Nixon pic this clearly is a significantly better scan as well. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Aciagrion occidentale-Kadavoor-2017-05-08-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 14:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info Aciagrion occidentale, Green striped slender dartlet, is a species of damselfly in the family Coenagrionidae found in India, Sri Lanka. This is a small and slender damselfly. They are extremely slim compared to the length 22-24mm; that's why this genus is called "Slims". But, in spite of their delicate build, they enjoy migration by rising high in the air and takes advantage of its lightweight in air currents. All by Jkadavoor -- Jee 14:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jee 14:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the angle of the plant and the insect --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but it is too dark. Additionally the black background above the head and thorax is very disturbing me. The dragonfly almost merges with it. --Hockei (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Wow! That dartlet is like the Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner of the insect world. Atsme 📞 20:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak Support because of the dark background -- Wolf im Wald 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Charles (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Uoaei1. Very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Матка 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 21:41:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose The white balance does look really off to me. Also, there's quite a lot of noise.--Peulle (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - the ripple effect in the water's reflection, the scene, the composition, the light refraction that makes it all seem unrealistic - love it. Atsme 📞 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now The noise is unavoidable when shooting fog (I know!) but the "fluorescent lamp" WB is not doing this photo any favors. I did a version taking the WB from the paint on one of the boats (it's in my dropbox) and this revealed a lot more detail in the mountains. It also gave the pic more depth since it shows that there is sunshine beyond the mists in the gorge. I could support such a version. --cart-Talk 10:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Henry VIII of England (Holbein).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 20:25:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 21 April 1509 until his death. Henry was the second Tudor monarch, succeeding his father, Henry VII. Henry is best known for his six marriages and, in particular, his efforts to have his first marriage, to Catherine of Aragon, annulled. His disagreement with the Pope on the question of such an annulment led Henry to initiate the English Reformation, separating the Church of England from papal authority and appointing himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Despite his resulting excommunication, Henry remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings.Hans Holbein the Younger (German: Hans Holbein der Jüngere) (c. 1497 – between 7 October and 29 November 1543) was a German and Swiss artist and printmaker who worked in a Northern Renaissance style. He is best known as one of the greatest portraitists of the 16th century.He also produced religious art, satire and Reformation propaganda, and made a significant contribution to the history of book design. He is called "the Younger" to distinguish him from his father, Hans Holbein the Elder, an accomplished painter of the Late Gothic school. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose out of focus or motion blur --The Photographer 00:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very fine image, should try again - on higher ISO, some 1000 shouldnt hurt. --Mile (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others; not up to the exceedingly high standard set by painting photos by institutions like the Getty Museum. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Well below our standards for digitizations. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Eberstein Hochfeistritz Pfarr-und Wallfahrtskirche Unsere Liebe Frau 19062017 9688.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:52:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the diagonal line crossing the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support nice Ezarateesteban 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I'm just not wowed. For me it's an average composition in average light. -- King of ♠ 04:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Compositionally very nice. --Code (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It's not the most "wow"-like image, but one thing that is usually difficult when shooting churches is to get the whole building from wall to spire sharp without distortions. That's done well here. Composition is good, depth is good - the only real issue with it is that the light is a bit boring. Next time, tell God to line up a sunset perfectly for you exactly when you need it. ;) --Peulle (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Your comments about the lighting conditions comply one hundred percent with my thoughts about the situation of the image. Hopefully it will occur one day that I will be there shooting at sunup or sundown. I started my prayers to God asking Him for compliancy. ;) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the interplay of lines and forms. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Після грози ).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:12:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Swift11 -- Swift11 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Swift11 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beeee-u-teee-ful....Atsme 📞 16:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It seems to be a spectacular picture but this is ps gone too far for me. Will absolutely support a more "modest" (and hopefully larger) version. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Sorry, summer thunderstorms in the mountains, in "regime time" they are so... -- Swift11
  •   Comment Swift11 please can you upload this image without downsizing. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Please, the size increased -- Swift11
  •   Support Thanks for the size upgrade. There's little EXIF info but I assume this was shot with your D80 which explains why this cropped photo is still only 5MP. I'm a bit skeptical that some of the scene owes to processing rather than reality, but assuming not, then it really is too fantastic a view to oppose over minor technical issues. Could you please add an English description to the file page? -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done English description added -- Swift11
  •   Oppose It's beautiful and all, but the technical issues stand in the way of an FP for me; there seems to be some chromatic aberrations by the top of the trees, then there's the compression issues/grain in the grass near the camera as well as in the fog on the near left.--Peulle (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed Fixed some technical flaws... Peulle thank you! -- Swift11 13:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin. Jee 12:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opposers --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin; I don't see anything that bothers me enough to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very well done landscape Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Per User:Colin and now some tech issues have been fixed. PumpkinSky talk 12:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I've been unsure for a while, but I've decided this photo is striking enough to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.09.09.-07-Anglersee Bruehl--Grosse Heidelibelle-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 10:58:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love it although DOF is pretty low. -- Wolf im Wald 13:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - only the head and top left wing is in focus which gives me pause but overall it's quite catchy. Atsme 📞 16:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I used F13. This is according to my experience the best compromise between sharpness and DOF. F14, the next step, brings not much more worthwhile DOF in a picture like this and then F16 is hardly usable in most cases. -- Hockei (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Macros of tiny fluttery critters are near impossible to capture in full focus. Totally understand. Detail in the head, legs & anterior carapace are great!! Atsme 📞 03:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Trithemis pallidinervis 1725.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 18:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info created and uploaded by Vengolis - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - support everything except the soft focus. Atsme 📞 16:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The eyes should be sharp and they obviously are not in this case. Apparently was well concealed here.--Ermell (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Atsme and Ermell -- Wolf im Wald 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose - Dull light and good but not exceptional sharpness, so though quite good, this photo doesn't seem to me to be quite up to the level of really outstanding odonata FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice dragonfly. But the quality is not good enough. Low Sharpness and too much noise. Also the crop could be better. Right and left is too much empty room. --Hockei (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose quite surprised it got QI. Charles (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guépier d'Europe ichkeul 112.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 15:20:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support --Hockei (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Bottom crop is too tight on the tail feathers. Daphne Lantier 16:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent capture. Good and sharp rendition of the plumage.--Peulle (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 20:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good; but just turning the head in a few minutes difference will not make another FP. Jee 03:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jee. @Yann, Hockei, Daphne Lantier, Peulle, Der Wolf im Wald:@PumpkinSky: -- you can support both if you like but just making you aware we promoted the other side of his head only three weeks ago, and this frame wasn't uploaded at the time. I think El Golli Mohamed has uploaded many fine bird photos, and I'd prefer so see a nomination of a different one. -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Machts nichts. It's the same species, maybe even the same bird, but it's not the same picture nor another version of the same picture. According to the EXIF data the two pics were shot at different times on the same day. It's in a different position and in a different pose. Oppose if you like though, @Colin:. PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment Being new at FPC, I'm still a bit confused. Last time I asked, the answers seemed to conclude that it would be OK with several FPs of the same species of bird, but it was not really clear just how similar pictures have to be in order for them to overlap to the point that only one of them can be FP. Thinking about it now, I think I'll make my own decision instead of looking for a consensus: the way I read the rules, they want to avoid having several FP images that are very similar. Otherwise users would just upload dozens of images from the same set in order to get more FPs. I think this case hits that criterion - the only difference is the direction of the bird's head, everything else is the same IMO: position, location, time (only 4 min between). Personally, I think this capture is slightly better, so I would prefer to have the other image delisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peulle (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 June 2017‎ (UTC)
        • Most of the photographers here will have many photos of each subject taken at essentially the same moment. For example, in the three minutes between these two photos, the camera EXIF claims 44 shots were taken. We choose the best one, rather than nominating every variation of subject movement, and I think most of us here would not like FP to become a forum where multiple frames from the same moment were routinely featured. That's what "finest" is about. Like El Grafo, I would support a "delist and replace" if El Golli Mohamed thinks this one is superior. I think they are much the same. -- Colin (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
          • @Peulle, Colin: Your posts explain your positions better. The crux of this issue is shown by "but it was not really clear just how similar pictures have to be in order for them to overlap to the point that only one of them can be FP", if 44 shots in 4 minutes is too similar, is 50 in 5 minutes ok? Just how much of the body position needs to change? "upload dozens of images from the same set in order to get more FPs" and "a forum where multiple frames from the same moment were routinely featured" suggest we want to avoid "FP count-itis", which I agree with. So the question becomes, where exactly do you draw the line? People aren't going to agree on this. I'll ponder this issue more. PumpkinSky talk 12:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
            • I don't think anyone would support trying to regulate this with something official, so there is no need to "draw the line". Why reduce the argument down to one that a machine could judge? Generally, this has not been a problem: most nominators quickly get the message that they should nominate a variety of dissimilar images. Mostly this sort of thing happens by accident because people are unaware of the nomination of a similar image. Part of the review process is examining similar images and similar FPs, and sometimes nominators forget to do this. FP is not just a method for choosing "our finest" work, but a forum where people enjoy reviewing great photos. If folk started nominating a series of similar images they took at the same time, perhaps with the argument "this one is just as good, therefore should be featured too" then we'd all get really bored really quickly. And there would also be a feeling that games were being played simply to get more FPs (not saying this is the case here). -- Colin (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
              • By drawing the line I meant we each have to decide where that line is ourselves. People will never agree what is too similar or not. PumpkinSky talk 14:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
                • Agree not everyone will agree on each image, which is why we vote/discuss, but the "line" doesn't have to be determined by some personal algorithm like you seem to imply with the 44 vs 50 frames question. It is more of a gut feeling and judgment call. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. FP is about images that stand out against others, so featuring basically the same motif twice doesn't make much sense to me. I like the composition of this on a bit better, so I'd probably support a "delist and replace" nomination, though. --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jee. --Hockei (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Though an analogous photograph, of the same author and about the same subject, was featured some weeks ago, it does not diminish the quality of this photo or its usefulness. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Harlock81, QI is the project where useful/high-quality is judged without reference to previous works. FP is for the "best" or "finest". -- Colin (talk)
      • Colin, IMHO if "the best" was been meant in a so absolute way, probably none picture presented in the last weeks could be considered appropriate for FP. --Harlock81 (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I think you are misinterpreting what "the best" means. -- Colin (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
        • The problem is that "the best" and "the finest" aren't clearly defined in the rules. It seems to me that Colin interprets that to mean "the finest within a group of photos that are highly similar" (akin to VI rules). Even that begs the question "what exactly does highly similar mean?". As I said before, people simply aren't going to agree on this topic...it's too nebulous to precisely pin down. PumpkinSky talk 10:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
          • You are seeing problems where there aren't. Of course these cannot be "clearly defined". It is our job as "the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons". It seems pretty clear to me the community is capable of determining this without rules, an generally it does not require this much navel gazing as to whether we need rules or not. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose delist and replace. Charles (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Charlesjsharp and others above. Atsme 📞 15:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:A mountain seen while going Dhumba lake.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 11:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Iceshra - uploaded by Iceshra - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Yann (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Are those halos on the left, where the brown mountain in the foreground meets the white background?--Peulle (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support-- KennyOMG (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment And which mountains are those? Categories are missing, and the image title should also say so. I'd guess Nilgiri North and Tilicho left in the background (under the white cloud), but I don't know for sure. Lupo 13:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Reasonably well-done from a technical standpoint, but compositionally it doesn't stand out from so many of our other mountain landscapes. It feels, actually, like the right half of a possibly featurable panorama. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Further information about the motif are lacking. I´m not conviced with the composition. IMHO there ist too much empty blue sky. --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.10.04.-04-Mannheim Vogelstang--Haussperling-Maennchen.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 10:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Just a   Comment. I don't think that the nature wants to expose eyes of (this kind of) birds to the sun. Also the area around the eyes is black so it has a reinforcing effect. --Hockei (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's true about birds' eyes. 16:07, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info New version with changed crop. --Hockei (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Lošmi (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - lovely! Atsme 📞 16:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The softness and delicacy may be an inadvertent result of uncertain processing, or they may be deliberate, but the end result is the same different take on this very common sort of image here. This way, it almost looks like what you see printed on the side of that cup your grandmother serves you tea in when you go to her house. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 12:26, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 17:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Passeridae (Sparrows)

File:Silesian Beskids - hiking trial to Barania Góra peak 03.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 08:35:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

After reading other people point of view including agreement with Ikan I change my vote to   Neutral. --Hockei (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The contrasts between the sky, forest and crystaline snow gives sufficient wow factor for me. The depth of the image is enough to see the frost fog in the valleys far below.--Peulle (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Puelle PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Something that never happen in South India; so I may be biased. Jee 03:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose - The technical quality of this photo is really high and it has a nice winter mood. I especially like the frosty trees and the pastel colors in the background. However, the crop on the upper right bugs me enough to mildly oppose a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - love the layered background on the left, the colors and sparkle of the snow. The crop could have started at the gap just past the first few trees on right as the overall beauty of the picture is more to the left. Atsme 📞 16:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Martin; it was the nominator's good fortune that I first saw this on a particularly warm and humid day, in my own home, which by choice does not have air conditioning. Makes me want to go down to the basement, get skis or snowshoes, and enter it. I can practically feel the crispness of the air. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Daphne Lantier 17:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural