Open main menu

Contents

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Crab spider (Misumena Vatia) with prey silver-spotted skipper (Hesperia comma).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 13:06:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Φοινικόδασος Πρέβελης 4317.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 12:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Looking upward at the Yick Cheong Building, 13 June 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 07:10:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Comment I really want to support this, but unfortunately rules are rules. You have to withdraw one of the older nominations before this can be opened again. --Cart (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • By all means, works fine. Striked FPD comment and old nominator. Tweaked 'Renominated' to 'Re- nominated' for the sake of FPCBot which might not reconize the combined wording. --Cart (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I've liked it since I first saw it on Flickr. --Cart (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The thumbnail looks so strange (like a manga drawing), it's really surprising to see the reality at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing, but I am happy not to live there --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Benh, the sky is too empty. You need to photoshop an aeroplane or Godzilla or DeathStar. -- Colin (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support clever Charles (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Desenka meadow 2019 G2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 06:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info Mist (visible atmospheric water) shortly before sunrise. Meadow at dawn near Desenka railway halt, Ukraine
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice light when it's scattered like this, but given the lack of detail I'm not really convinced that this is one of the best images on Commons. The only really good thing about it is the light, but then "all sunsets are beautiful".--Peulle (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The weather and light conditions are good but not combined with interesting enough landscape and the foreground is rather dark. The composition is a bit random. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Crepuscular rays over parc de Noisiel at sunrise, 26 May 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 06:58:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:AIDAperla in Rotterdam - September 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2019 at 06:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Venice awakes (20618763815).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 21:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
  •   Info all by me -- Benh (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral OK my turn to take the reviews. Please be honest. This is my take at low key photography. I also like the gondolas lines going toward the sun. -- Benh (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's got a lot going for it, but the foreground being out of focus is a shame. Charles (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you Charles. Just, are we talking about the gondolas? Because the exposure was long enough for motion blur to show (I believe it's even an exposure blending). But yes not the sharpest work for sure generally speaking. - Benh (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I understand, so   Support Charles (talk) 09:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The foreground is out of focus, but it's an atmospheric and beautiful picture. Cmao20 (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Boats in water are notoriously uncooperative when it comes to longer exposure, these are good enough as they add to the ambience. --Cart (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, but I would love to see a wider crop --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but i would tweak the sharpening, which causes quite a strong white-line halo round high-contrast edges. Perhaps the radius is too large? -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great light - well managed. --C messier (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Türkenmohn Blüte 2019-05-20 11-07-39 (C)-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 21:27:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nave, Church of St Peter and St Paul, East HarlingEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 18:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom‎
  •   Info Here are the two important views of the nave, church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling. The view looking west is taken from the altar, with the mediaeval font in the distance. Nearby are some misericord stalls. The hammerbeam ceiling dates from c.1450 and rises to 45' (13.7m). The spandrels are filled with ornate carvings. The view looking east is taken from in front of the mediaeval font and shows off all the significant features of the church. The two aisles are not symmetrical: the south is 20' (6m) wide and the north 12' (3.6m) wide. I like how there is a contrast between the mediaeval woodwork and the modern active noticeboards. The little red creature in the top left of the east window is not the devil, but a red squirrel (see this photo for more detail of that window). At 103 and 169MP, each are about 2x the resolution of most Diliff cathedral interiors. As with any wide-angle rectilinear projection, the resolution is better in the centre than the edges, and please note if printed at fine-art 300dpi both would be 1m tall. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Clearly excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes.--Peulle (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Photos like these inspire me not to even try to capture church interiors :) --Podzemnik (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment To me, the first image is very good, but the second image is simply too wide by a couple of mm. Compositionally, I understand why you would choose this crop, but the undistorted area in the centre is rather small. To me a crop for the left window (so cutting the right window) and just below the heaters (?) at the top would work better (I made a note) - might still be worth uploading this crop just as a second option for wiki projects. --DXR (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per DXR the first image is the stronger, but I wouldn't crop the second. I like when a small church with an obviously active local community and kiddie art gets the "Diliff-esque" treatment. --Cart (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:The Poor Man's Scream (41869387122).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 18:15:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info all by me -- Benh (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Funny that that the Flickr bot caught this on my Flickr page. Please "roast me" :) -- Benh (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info And this is the place I tried to depict FYI. - Benh (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see any reason why we can't feature great user-made artwork, and this fits the bill. Cmao20 (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Contemporary art is not something we see every day.--Peulle (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While it's funny, there are so many derivate of The Scream and I'm not convinced this is the best. Some more original work from your brush would be interesting to see here though. --Cart (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We have various versions of this scream created by the reknown artist (1, 2, 3, 4, 5...). I really don't see why a user's copy would be preferred. To be honest, I think this nomination is a decent painting, but really far from being a notable piece of art -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as Basile Charles (talk) 12:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Fishing boat Frifararen at Vikavet Museum 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 16:41:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Fixed Michielverbeek and Fischer.H, I liked a bit of drama of near silhouettes against the gale, but maybe I was too bold since I got those comments immediately. I've recovered a bit of the light on the boat and stone, not sure it's enough though. The boat is facing north, so you can't get full front sunlight on it --Cart (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like a still image from a Scandi noir show. Cmao20 (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
...I knew I should have checked the boat for bodies... --Cart (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support: I don't understand the aversion to shadows that seems to be widespread around here. Of course, there are instances when shadows are too dark and obscure too much, but in this case the shadow adds something, rather than distracts. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Ah, just realized the current version was brightened. The original was indeed too dark. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Bunratty Castle and Durty Nellys, Southeast view 20150803 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 14:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications
  •   Info Bunratty Castle in County Clare, Ireland (along with a nearby pub that claims to be one of the oldest in Ireland). This castle was built in the fifteenth century by the powerful MacNamara clan; in the twentieth century it was heavily restored and opened to the public. I think this is a beautiful depiction of the castle as well as an elegant evocation of rural Irish life. Created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Sintra Palácio Nacional BW 2018-10-04 11-39-16.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 13:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lady Chapel, looking East, Church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 11:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom‎
  •   Info The Lady chapel in the church of St Peter and St Paul, East Harling. Much of what you see is about 500 years old, and has been reconfigured long ago from its original locations in the church. This view shows off the detailed wood carving. Use the zoom viewer if the file is too big to download/view on your PC. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, this is extraordinary. Beautiful church with plenty of intricate details in the wood carvings. Not quite Diliff sharpness at full-res (although still pretty good), but that's quite to be expected since you've provided the image at extremely high resolution; when downsized to 9000px across, it's still 54 megapixels and easily the equal of most of Diliff's work. You should nominate here more often; this catches my eye on your image pages, although of course it's not as high resolution, but I think it would stand a strong chance. Cmao20 (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Diliff's are the standard to aim at. His church interiors are typically downsized about 50% and range from 30-70MP. -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very high quality. Charles (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice to see these high quality shots of a small church rather than just the grand cathedrals. --Cart (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice rood screen (?) Almost too big. Some weird artifacts on the aeras of very high contrast, and at least one stitching error. But I don't give a shit actually ;) - Benh (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Benh, I believe there used to be a rood screen, which was removed and the sides of this lady chapel were made from it. Other parts of the screen were placed at the back of the church (here and here). -- Colin (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Window on a barn in Färlev.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2019 at 06:51:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Other windows
  •   Info All by me, -- Cart (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Typical Cart ability to find beauty in unusual places. Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but for me nothing special. --A.Savin 19:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think this kind of shots work better when it's looking perpendicularly at the plan (hope my english is correct). Here the converging lines just distract me and draw my eyes to the left where there's nothing. - Benh (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the shadows and more 3D effect you get from a slight angle. Straight on looks too flat for me. Chacun à son goût. --Cart (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Then I'd play with the lighting instead (make it more coming from the side). Also, very importantly, it's "Chacun ses goûts" :) (and yes my oppose is very subjective) - Benh (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I will tell my old French teacher. :) --Cart (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:วัดพระศรีรัตนศาสดาราม วัดพระแก้ว กรุงเทพมหานคร - Wat Phra Kaew, Temple of Emerald Buddha, Bangkok, Thailand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 22:38:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Absolutely. Actually the camera was on the tripod, and several pictures were necessary to clone out a few visitors. Otherwise I could have waited centuries before this place gets empty. And I arrived early morning, before the opening! Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I didn't ask how, but was curious yes. I actually use the same trick ;) - Benh (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree with Benh, but why only 12MP from your 30MP camera? -- Colin (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low resolution: downsized about 60% with no justification. I am happy to overlook downsizing when the image is >20MP or if there is a good reason why the shot was technically challenging or we are stuck with whatever some external photographer uploaded to Flickr and the shot is outstanding. But not a 30>12MP downsize from a Commons regular. Happy to remove the oppose if full resolution uploaded. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Colin, aren't you a bit extreme here? Although I more or less agree with you, this puts quite a pressure on a user IMO (and it's not like that user overwhelms us with his entire Lr catalog). Nothing obliges Basile to upload full size, and 12mpix of that quality seems very reasonable to me. At least, why not express your opinion through a neutral? Just my two cents. - Benh (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Benh, back in March, Basile was very adamant in opposing a cormorant photo downsized from 50 to 20MP. The Commons:Image guidelines for FP do ask photographers not to downsize. Most reviewers allow some downsizing for reasons I gave, but may oppose otherwise. The issue has been discussed many times, without being able to come up with a rule we can all agree on. Anyway, I only get one vote so others are quite capable of supporting this if they wish. -- Colin (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info This monument is one of the most, if not the most important of Thailand. Type "main sites Thailand" or "main sites Bangkok" on Google, then you get results like this one or that one showing the Grand Palace in first positions. There was no decent picture on Wikipedia of this building before I upload the file. Check the Category:Wat Phra Kaew. The photograph was shot @11 mm focal length FF, so that I could get the whole buildings after perspective correction (and obviously slight size reduction, which is completely normal in architecture photography). This is not downsized. As said above, it's very difficult to find a good image of this temple on Google without tourist. Then I think the high educational value, with the relative rarity, and the correct light, should make it -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Perspective correction often decreases resolution quite unavoidably, as in the case of this FP. Basile has never, as far as I know, been known for downsizing his images, and so we should take him at his word. Cmao20 (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Cmao20 I appreciate that a strong vertical perspective correction in Lightroom will reduce resolution slightly. Some adjustment to the Y Offset often helps avoid having to reduce the scale too much to restore the height with the frame. I tried some fairly extreme "corrections" in lightroom and could not get anywhere close to 60% reduction. I suggest Basile experiments with the Y Offset and should then find that the perspective correction should have minimal impact on resolution. An 11mm lens on full frame is already an extreme ultra-wide, so if one is having to make strong corrections to that, then really we aren't seeing realistic proportions any longer. The state-of-the-art wrt architecture photos on Commons is a stitched photograph with resolution significantly in excess of what the camera produces -- we have loads of such high resolution images. -- Colin (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Colin, I mean, yes, such high-resolution stitched images (such as this by you) are truly wonderful, but they don't come around very often at FPC, the vast majority of images of buildings here are single frame. I didn't know we had, as you say, loads of these images, and if we do it'd be nice to see a lot more round at FPC! But for me I don't think we should apply such a high bar to architectural photographs, as a sharp 12.5 megapixel image like this one is really good enough for almost any purposes; it's easily big enough to illustrate the building for any obvious purpose I can think of. Basile's image is not perfect - there's a bit of distortion at the edges, probably because of the perspective correction - but looking at other images of the buildings on the internet, the proportions don't look totally out-of-joint to me, so it's still an accurate depiction of the building. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Cmao20, for the comment and accurate research. Yes, this case is exactly the same than Podzemnik's before and after perspective correction + crop. This is not downsized -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  • See User:Colin/PixelPeeping. Yes 12MP is ok for many purposes. It is just a very little short of what is needed for a Nat Geo spread at 300dpi and shorter still than needed for a Vogue spread. One of the ideas I explored in that essay was the difference between a "bold subject" and a "detailed subject". Some images are a bit of both. I want to see the detail of the tiles on this temple, but there isn't the resolution. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Hazarduari Palace, Murshidabad illuminated at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 18:31:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#India
  •   Info created by DeepanjanGhosh - uploaded by DeepanjanGhosh - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose This definitely shows the architecture well, but I find it all a bit dark, with the strip of complete blackness at the bottom. I don't find the light particularly aesthetic or interesting. Add to that the fact that the edge-sharpness is not as good as the sharpness in the centre, and I don't think I can support this one. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Chandelier captured in Madhapur, Hyderabad (1).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 14:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Lamps
  •   Info All by IM3847. Chandelier captured from the bottom -- IM3847 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- IM3847 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me too. Half abstract half figurative -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't quite work for me. The black areas in the background especially are disturbing, with several areas being smudged with a reddish colour.--Peulle (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can not see what it is in this picture --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Well executed and a bit of a novelty, but the visual wow escapes me. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:View from Gamle Bybro, Trondheim 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 13:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Norway
  •   Info all by Satdeep Gill. A view of warehouses along Nidelva river, Trondheim. -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think there was a good compositional idea underlying this image, in terms of the different colours of the warehouses, the contrasting bright reds, greens and yellows. But I don't think it's quite worked. This is in part because you weren't very lucky with the light; the day is too grey and dull to show the buildings at their best, but not grey and stormy enough to have an atmospheric mood. I also think that the angled composition means we don't see the coloured buildings as clearly as we could have done; perhaps it would have been better to stand on the opposite bank and capture them face-on reflected in the water. Finally, the distracting bottom-right corner should probably be fixed. This is not a bad image, the quality and resolution are superb as one would expect from the Sony α7, but for these reasons I think it falls some way short of FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light is not so good, there is too much water + sky (check the lower right corner!), the left side is blurred. --A.Savin 17:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin. --Cart (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Graureiher.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 12:19:52
 

  •   Info As there are quite a lot of herons in the FP gallery, the bar for such a listing is high. Over time, some images may be delisted as they are no longer considered among the very best, since new images of higher standards are added. I would like the Community to consider this image from 2007 for delisting, as it has what we in 2019 consider to be a fairly low resolution, in addition to having quite a lot of space around the main subject. Also, the bird itself is not entirely sharp, and there are chromatic aberrations present. (Original nomination). Created and uploaded by Chmehl.
  •   Delist -- Peulle (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist poor lighting. Charles (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Probably a strong image when it was featured, but per nom we have lots of images of herons, and this one lacks detail on the bird and is not very well-lit. Cmao20 (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Also the bird is looking away -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Per others--Boothsift 23:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 06:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Javan Green Peafowl in Baluran National Park.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 09:42:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Broken Beach.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 09:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ardpur.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 07:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • It looks like an abbreviation of Ardea purpurea. It's not entirely out of the ballpark, but it should probably be changed to something more meaningful - especially if the nomination succeeds.--Peulle (talk) 10:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great capture. Cmao20 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It is a nice shot, but please change name after nomination Kookaburra 81. It would be better to rename before nomination Tomer T. Charles (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Charles. I'd suggest to pick a file name with the name of the species + geographical location. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 20:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting action, good light -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Needs to be renamed once the feature is given. --Cayambe (talk) 06:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poor small fish, but nice image... -- Karelj (talk) 08:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Dinkum (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice shot, and looking in their eyes... I can see this purple heron is so proud of what he (she?) catched! And I'm agree with others, please change the name after nomination. Ahmadtalk 20:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Sass de Putia y Odles de Eores dala Mont de Antermeia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 07:08:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
  •   Info created & uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unpleasant midday light --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me, light may not be the best but it's very detailed, good composition and fun to view at full-res. Cmao20 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1. Given the number of alp photos we have, I think we can be picky about the light when the compo is good but rather ordinary. --Cart (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Bahia-13.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 01:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Had to strike this oppose because the FPX-contested below counts an an oppose as well. – Lucas 11:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks good as a thumbnail, but at full size the overprocessing is evident.--Peulle (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Another waste of our time by Arion. Much cloning of the sky as well as other points. Charles (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As a thumb, this looks stunning, but per Peulle and Lucas there is too much NR at full-size; the image is very lacking in detail, and the lighthouse itself is noisy and blurry. Tough shot, of course, but not up to scratch, I feel. Cmao20 (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, low quality per oppose votes, I've reported Arion again at ANU – Lucas 17:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lucasbosch: While you were gone like Arion, we have tightened our rules for FPX so that it no longer applies to images that have a lot of opposes and no support as it is not against the guidelines. --Boothsift 23:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't even like it as a thumb: The top of the light house looks very distorted. --El Grafo (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Vista do Convento da Penha do Morro do Moreno.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2019 at 01:11:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Had to strike this oppose because the FPX-contested below counts an an oppose as well. – Lucas 11:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Downsized, which is a no-go for me. Also there are chromatic aberrations that require cleaning.--Peulle (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's not that bad, I think some of this is a bit harsh, but yes it seems downsized, there are visible CAs, and also blurriness and slight vignetting in the corners. Cmao20 (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, low quality per oppose votes, I've reported Arion again at ANU – Lucas 17:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Lucasbosch: While you were gone like Arion, we have tightened our rules for FPX so that it no longer applies to images that have a lot of opposes and no support as it is not against the guidelines. --Boothsift 23:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Pier 66 and Hudson Yards (01473)p.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 21:05:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States
  •   Info Walked up the west side of Manhattan, New York City last month and like this as an example of what that area generally looks like. Lots of landmark buildings here (see map labels/notes). created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites talk |  21:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  21:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Wow! This feels much more lively and "3D" than such city panos usually do (...and I sorted all the FP panos a while back...) I also like that the people in the photo really adds to it for once. --Cart (talk) 21:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Cmao20 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A not yet commonly photographed part of Manhattan. Great job! -- King of ♠ 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with the others--Boothsift 04:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The stitching error on the "frying pan" should be easy to fix.--Ermell (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Victoria Memorial Kolkata at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 19:32:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Gran kudús (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 27.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 19:20:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
  •   Info Fighting of Greater kudus (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), Chobe National Park, Botswana. c/u/n by me, Poco2 19:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Dramatic moment, the kind of shot you can't plan on getting. A little bit noisy but all within acceptable limits. Cmao20 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20.--Peulle (talk) 08:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Action is good, but neither composition nor resolution doesn't impress me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 11:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment These are juvenile males, so I imagine it was a sort of practice fight. Charles (talk) 11:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Chaotic composition, the color of image object (deers) is very similar to the color of background. -- Karelj (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Persicaria maculosa.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 18:17:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:European bee-eaters (Merops apiaster) with dragonflies.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 17:05:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Coraciiformes_(Kingfishers,_Bee-eaters,_Rollers,_Motmots,_and_Todies)
  •   Info This nomination does not have the technical quality in close up like most successful animal FPCs. BUT, all three bee-eaters are showing off their dragonfly lunch. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support wow - Benh (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok, so you caught three of these birds, mounted them on a stick, gathered some dragonflies and carefully positioned one in each beak. I mean that is the only way this could be done. ;-) Seriously, as have been said on this forum: wow factor may occasionally take precedence over technical quality. --Cart (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support That's fantastic, whatever technical limitations it might have. Cmao20 (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 22:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit soft, perhaps, but seeing this just reminds me of the hummingbirds in Clown of the Jungle. :D --Peulle (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Wow is there, but nothing is really sharp. --Ivar (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Really hard to judge, the wow factor left not much room for improvement but the technical quality is indeed clearly below the FP threshold. Given that this is a wildlife shot eventually tips the scale for a supporting vote Poco2 19:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes thanks; I see this as ideal for a magazine or newspaper article - not for printing out A3 size. And I would trade a dozen of my FPs for this one! Charles (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too blurry and far below the level of this existing FP--Ermell (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question: is this level of technical quality typical of a modern lens at 500 mm? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Certainly not. Look at any of my FPs. The technical quality is not good here as I say in the introduction. With a once-in-a-lifetime wildlife action shot, you don't have time to set everything up. I was in a car (not a bad hide) and had to twist and shoot hand-held using a 400mm lens fitted with 1.4 extender. I'll take it. Charles (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The wow outweighs the technical flaws. Just enough. Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Willow in the Red Zone, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 07:31:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
  •   Info All by me. It's a Weeping Golden Willow in the Red Zone by River Avon, Christchurch, New Zealand. The picture was taken right before the sunset, about a minute later the sun was below the horizon - hence the red colour. It's just working for me - I like it so I nominated it :) --Podzemnik (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice angle, at first I thought the photo needed rotation but seeing the species of the tree, I got it (I think...). :-) Did you camp under the tree? --Cart (talk) 10:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportVery nice, but please rotate 90 degrees CCW. --XRay talk 15:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Please don't. If rotated, I think it will just look like any other tree distorted by some special lens or "fixed" in post-processing. Having it this way makes you think twice about the angle IMO. --Cart (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support This one really made me go 'wow' as soon as I saw it. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Interesting, but how about a CCW 90° rotation? I would feel like I'm facing the tree and then look up. - Benh (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning, but do not rotate to normal view. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Why should I have to keep my head to the side to see the picture correctly? It could easily be rotated 90 °. For me it is no FI. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If you lie on your back under a tree and look up at the branches and the sky, there is no other direction than up. A weeping willow will spread its branches down around you, at least that is how I perceive this. Here is a similar view with other trees. --Cart (talk) 21:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support btw please keep the landscape orientation. something so reliant on mood and evocation needs the human eye's more horizontal perspective — Rhododendrites talk |  21:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I will. I understand that some folks migh find it ankward though. I was laying under the willow, thinking about life when I got the idea to take a shot of what I was actually looking at. I tried to rotate it but it just looks weird to me. It evocates a real tree from a classic angle - these are thick branches under about 45 degrees angle plus tiny branches that go all the way down. So this rotation makes sense to me. Thanks for the support. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support awesome the way it is --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Feels like lying under the tree and looking up. :) --Peulle (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Creative -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Dinkum (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Something different Poco2 20:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the way this subverts the usual dreaminess one would expect from looking up at willows by doing it in winter, when its branches are bare. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Pont du Gard (30).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 06:06:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#France
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like the lines heading to the bridge. The fact that one of them cuts into the reflection is quite adventurous and makes it interesting. Though it's quite a pity that you downsize your images. Also, it feels like your photos are missing blacks and whites. Maybe increasing them + a bit more contrast would make your photos less flat. I still like the compo too much not support right away. Podzemnik (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting composition, beautiful bridge, worth a photo.—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2a02:a03f:3d7a:2100:c800:30d1:478c:e558 (talk) 15 September 2019‎ (UTC10:06)
  • Invalid vote. Sorry, unregistered IPs cannot vote here. If you are a registered user who forgot to log in, you might want to have an admin delete this edit to keep your IP hidden. --Cart (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik; the use of leading lines is excellent, and this is a really good composition. Dramatic weather too, and nice reflection. But I do agree that your photos are sometimes a little flat and that a tiny bit more contrast would help. Still, this is a solid FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This photo has got a lot: reflection, dark clouds, special foreground --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I believe you applied gradual darkening of the sky and it's a little too obvious. It also lacks a bit of saturation in my opinion, but I agree that it's a very nice composition with the very nice reflection. - Benh (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 20:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Buzzkill oppose The trees at left look really weird. Almost like what you'd find on stage sets. Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Almejas chiludas - Panopea Generosa.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 06:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Argiope aurantia - ventral veiw.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2019 at 04:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • still dark Charles (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Better, but the photo is not getting to me so just move to neutral. --Cart (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Understandable, the subject does not have a universal aesthetic appeal :-) --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Still not FP, needed a different background and better DoF. Charles (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The spider is great, but the background is too busy. --Cart (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent for me -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment just out of curiosity - why did you choose this rather obsolete license? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the license I started using 11 years ago, and I haven't thought much about changing it. Is there a disadvantage to still be using it now? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, the CC system evolved over the years. Its latest versions are much clearer and more easily applicable in different jurisdictions, see here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
It looks like 2.5 is still the latest CC version for Canada. I should look at the international one, I suppose. The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart (Typo in filename should be corrected in any event, also). Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Given that the typo will be fixed later Poco2 20:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Edro III Shipwreck.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 19:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Shipwrecks
  •   Info created by Nino_Verde - uploaded by Nino_Verde - nominated by Nino Verde -- Nino Verde (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice colors and scene but vignetting is seldom a good idea on FPCs. It is also a bit too gritty and unsharp; might be due to the f/11. A larger aperture and higher ISO could have been better since the ship is so far away (check out any one of Christian Ferrer's great ship photos, example). --Cart (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for comment. I understand what i did wrong and check my raw photos to process and suggest for FP. --Nino Verde (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A dramatic sight, but the vignetting is a bit of a problem. I don't think the light conditions are quite as good as they could be too. I like the composition though. Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others--Boothsift 17:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Aleš Kravos Kurentovanje Ptuj 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 18:07:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Probably. Why? --ModriDirkac (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Disturbing, unsharp stick in the foreground --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The stick in the foreground is photobombing the picture. --Cart (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. Certainly an interesting cultural picture, but the stick is very distracting for me. Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If only the stick wasn't there--Boothsift 17:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Monasterio Noravank, Armenia, 2016-10-01, DD 29.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 14:17:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Armenia
  •   Info The Surb Astvatsatsin ('Holy Mother of God') Church at Noravank, a large thirteenth-century monastic complex located inside a gorge in Armenia, with sheer cliffs on both sides. This church is considered the centrepiece of the complex, its grandest and most dramatic building, and was the final project of the renowned Armenian sculptor Momik, whose tomb is located near the church. created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool, thank you, Cmao20! just uploaded a new version with a slight crop improvement Poco2 14:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: needs perspective correction. And why is the sky so dark? --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    The Cosmonaut: better now? --Poco2 22:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    The sky is, but the left side is still leaning about 2-3 degrees. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
    Ok, The Cosmonaut: here you go Poco2 14:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
    Great! --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but bottom crop is too tight --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Uoaei1 --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Military orchestra in front of the Stockholm Palace 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 11:31:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
  •   Info created by Kritzolina - uploaded by Kritzolina - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice, excellent crop. --Cart (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fresh idea and well executed. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Frank. Cmao20 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: disembodied hands holding a clarinet, which is cut off from both sides is a very questionable choice of composition. Most of the image is not in focus, except for small parts of the gloves and the coat. Purple fringing on the edges of the cord crossing the left glove. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above and the yellow is odd - and not enough is in focus Charles (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Intresting Bijay chaurasia (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles--Boothsift 04:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cuts off too much of the clarinet. There's probably a place for this kind of thing if it showed the bell of the clarinet, but, as it is, it's hard to see the use of it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per The Cosmonaut --Fischer.H (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support In my opinion very good composition, good colors and good sharpness -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not striking enough. Also per others -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This composition doesn't quite work for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 09:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition. -- Karelj (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Rosa Parks being fingerprinted by Deputy Sheriff D.H. Lackey after being arrested for boycotting public transportation.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 10:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Paris - IGNF PVA 1-0 1985-07-17 C2314-0022 1985 FR3736 0065.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2019 at 00:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
  •   Info created by Institut géographique national - uploaded by Pyb - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Nino Verde (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Why are you nominating an unprocessed image? Is the border etc. significant? Charles (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Maybe I just don't understand -- is there some significance to this particular aerial shot? It's from 1985, but there's little other information here. Also wouldn't expect a FP to have archival notes in the margins. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Rhododendrites. -- Karelj (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent representation of the class of aerial imagery - and by that I mean that the border etc. are integral to why this should be an FP. Of course it can be cropped, but then it is no different to thousands of other aerial images. If someone wanted an FP to represent an aerial image the framing sets that scene and communicates that perfectly. The slightly washed out emulsion of the 80's film stock is also important - again, of course someone could take a shot with a cutting-edge HDR DSLR, but it wouldn't be this, and post-processing it to look like this is fake. This is a very nice image, and a great representation of what an FP should be - not beauty shots, but important representative shots. Very nice. SFC9394 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Börnste, BMW Mini -- 2019 -- 7207-13.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2019 at 10:22:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Automobiles
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 10:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info I know, there are other FP's with similar cars. But I like this photograph so much ... It was made with a little help of a light from the left. --XRay talk 10:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 10:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per nomination, I think it works very well. Cmao20 (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per nomination. Better than the images in the offical advertising booklet for that car (I have compared it ;)). --Aristeas (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A well-balanced photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per nomination. I like that the car's shadow fits perfectly on the wood pile! --Gyrostat (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support much better than the existing similar FP. Charles (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Charles--Boothsift 04:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

File:A stream on a track between Sabine Hut and Speargrass Hut, Nelson Lakes National Park, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2019 at 09:56:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/New Zealand
  •   Info All by me. It's a small stream that runs over a hiking track in shady native beech forest. The orange thing on the tree in the back is a trail mark, a symbol of tramping in New Zealand. The trail basically runs over the stream, you have to hop over the boulders. I quite enjoy the shady and moist atmosphere. Quite a few native species can be seen including ferns, beech, horoeka and a lot of moss. -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 10:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A subtly beautiful place. Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Water & Stones are very nice, but yellow triangle & brownish fern & scattered branches in the background are a turn off for me --Axel (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a lot of brownish stuff because it's in the middle of the winter. Also, it's a native bush which makes the view a bit raw. I was thinking about removing the orange triangle but I quite like it - it's so typical for NZ bush that I just keep it on my pictures - but I understand that it might look distracting for others. Podzemnik (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 23:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:25, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It doesn't look like wintertime, though ... is this some sort of evergreen forest? Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case The rule of thumb is that what is not evergreen, is not native to NZ. This is a native forest, it's never been cut down before. In the winter, everything is wet and muddy and kind of dark green, in the summer it's a bit more green and many shrubs are flowering (but some shrubs and trees are flowering in the winter too...). But it's green all year around. When I first came here, I was quite amazed by hiking in the snowy bush where everything was green but covered in snow. Quite unusual sight for a European. You should come to check it out. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC) PS: The picture was taken at about 800m above the sea level. This one is just a couple of days before from 1600m. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dinkum (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A bit cluttered and lacks of wow factor, the technical execution was on the other hand precise Poco2 20:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Poco. - Benh (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Émile Bayard - Beaumarchais - Bégéarss in La mère coupable, 1876.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2019 at 13:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Maroilles Le Moulin de l'Abbaye en2019 (6).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2019 at 09:00:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose Neither version is sharp. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

File:Maison Carree in Nimes (15).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2019 at 07:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition. The road and the two ordinary buildings are not very appealing -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I like this, but I'd prefer to see a wider crop on the left-hand side, the road cuts off rather abruptly and I'm not sure it works. Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Moderate support I like the colors and the way the buildings and street fit together. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support What Cmao said--Boothsift 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Sunny green paddy fields with trees and long shadows at golden hour.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2019 at 04:30:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

(Five more) Thanks for the link -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support For me the picture is sufficiently different from the linked one. Golden hour, shadows, dark clouds. It captures the atmosphere beautifully and the composition is good. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Different enough from your others to me. This is a very beautiful subject and deserves mutliple FPs to capture different compositions and light conditions. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice--Boothsift 04:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Karelj (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-Dinkum (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice but per A.Savin Poco2 20:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Ladybird.tifEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2019 at 00:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Possibly.   Done --D-Kuru (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very different from typical ladybug photo. --Axel (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good picture but unfortunately not sharp enough. The exposure time should have been shorter to freeze the movement of the beetle.--Ermell (talk) 06:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The photo had poor description and categories. As nominator, it is your responsibility to check that all of this is up to standard before making the nom. I have fixed that for you, but please remember this the next time. --Cart (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Tif is also a rather cumbersome format. However, I would support this sharpened/edited jpeg version of the photo if you added it as an "Alternative" to your nomination. It is a really nice photo. --Cart (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I also thought about if tif or jpeg is the better one. However, tif can be used for lossless quality, jpg not. Why should we prefer non-lossless over lossless quality? Wouldn't this just be an incetive to not-share the better version? --D-Kuru (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It is not uncommon that the jpeg version is promoted to FP since it is easier to handle and the tif is maintained as an original reference. (Here is one of the latest examples.) A good photo is not just about the quality of the photo, it is also about how accessible the photo is. Not all wiki users have the same high technology standard we here at FPC might have. There is a sharpened TIF version if you prefer that. --Cart (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing in focus. 1/125 sec not right settting. Charles (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the hiar on it's back. How it that not in focus? --D-Kuru (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes the hair on the back is Ok. But we focus our attention on the body. And the composition/crop with the white area bottom left is not appealing. Charles (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Still: It's an exceptional photo. No need to have another super-sharp shot of a sitting ladybug. Isn't FP also about diversity? --Axel (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per above, although I don't mind the TIF format; it should be noted that anyone wishing to view in JPEG can simply click the link on the file page below the image itself, and view a full-size JPEG preview. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately per others --Boothsift 04:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Elephant Trunk.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2019 at 03:34:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Peulle: The only problem is that is not a NASA image, but was selected by NASA itself for their Astronomy Picture of the Day--Boothsift 22:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is not a NASA image, but an image from an amateur astrophotographer with an account on Commons (indeed, the same author as this, which I nominated a couple of weeks ago). As such, I think it's an excellent photo, and the best picture of the Elephant's Trunk Nebula on Commons. It doesn't quite reach NASA standards, but to do so would be impossible. It's still a superb and beautiful photograph, and close to the best that is realistically possible. The obvious advantages of NASA and others shouldn't preclude excellent amateur work in this genre becoming featured. Cmao20 (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support If it's good enough for NASA to select it as Astronomy Picture of the Day, it's good enough for me resolution-wise. Just looking at it as an image, it's gorgeous. --Cart (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --D-Kuru (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support all has been said. - Benh (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

File:De Rotterdam, September 2019 - 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2019 at 17:28:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Well, the diagonal of the black area marks the lower third of the image, so I would disagree that it's too close to the bottom. But that's also a matter of taste, I guess, as always. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Axel (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes! --Aristeas (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)