Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates

(Redirected from Commons:Featured pictures candidates)
Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures.

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and current month.

For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Formal thingsEdit

NominatingEdit

Guidelines for nominatorsEdit

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:

  • Licensing – Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • ResolutionImages (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are strong mitigating reasons.
Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. For images made from more than one photo, you can use the {{Panorama}} or {{Focus stacked image}} templates.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Valueour main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documentsEdit

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.

Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.

Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.

Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

PhotographsEdit

On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of thirds" is one useful guideline. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. Often, a horizon creating a top or bottom third of the space works better. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

Video and audioEdit

Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines.

Set nominationsEdit

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Adding a new nominationEdit

If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following.

Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.

All single files:

For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2

All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".


Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}

Recommended: Please add a category from the list at COM:FP.

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

VotingEdit

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.

You may use the following templates:

  • {{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question),
  • {{Request}} (Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request).

You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator.

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).

Featured picture delisting candidatesEdit

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture
{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP.
{{Delistandreplace}} Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box:


In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:

  • Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
  • A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
  • Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose.

Featured picture candidate policyEdit

General rulesEdit

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~. Also, remember that if more than one version is nominated, you should explicitly state which version you are withdrawing.
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.)
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rulesEdit

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes (or 7 Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist votes for a delist) at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that is familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be politeEdit

Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care.

Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken.

See alsoEdit

Table of contentsEdit

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).

Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{Nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{Nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Contents

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Cataract Creek, Mount Tamalpais State Park (February 2019).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2019 at 11:40:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Maria Anzbach Buchbergwarte Panorama W 20190217.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2019 at 09:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower Austria
  •   Info Panoramic view to the west from the observation tower at the Buchberg mountain (469 metres (1,539 ft)), municipality of Maria Anzbach, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very good labeling, so good for VI, but I find the photo quite hazy and I'm not captivated by the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not convinced by a barren landscape in the middle of winter. For better contrast and colors, either there should be snow, or it should be taken in a different season. -- King of ♠ 13:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Not the best light that day.--Peulle (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Flamenco común (Phoenicopterus roseus), Walvis Bay, Namibia, 2018-08-05, DD 30.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 20:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sninský kameň (v zime) 074.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 19:38:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Castle of Montal 12.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 07:15:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I quite like this. There's one small detail I don't understand, though: Is there some kind of mist only in the shadow at the top of the tree to the left of the chateau? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in its current form: there's quite a bit of barrel distortion going on. It's pretty normal for the ridge of an old roof to sag, but this one is doing the opposite. Other pictures in Category:Château de Montal suggest that both roofs' ridges are indeed pretty much straight. Also, I don't really dig the composition. With the trees blocking the lower part of the walls, I can't find much to hold on to. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed and the cylindrical projection is not natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:A nymphaea capensis in Viet Nam.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 6:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you, I will try better in the next time.Thanhdien8421 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Spotted Sandpiper (non-breeding plumage) (32877802088).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 21:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose I really think the crop needs changing for FP. Charles (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the size and well done --67.68.177.192 23:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Blue and green is a very common color palette in landscapes but not something we see all the time in bird photography. -- King of ♠ 02:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 06:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Not bad, but the crop is too tight. --Hockei (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Ben Arthur, Arrochar Alps, Scotland 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 18:04:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
  •   Info All by me. It's Ben Arthur, also called The Cobbler, an epic mountain in the Southern Highlands, Scotland. The picture was taken about 20 minutes after sunrise and the light was mesmerizing that morning. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely light, photogenic mountain. I do think your focus is a bit close meaning the distance isn't as sharp as foreground. Btw, did you thread the eye of the needle? I did that as a young teenager. Not a difficult scramble to the top but very very exposed. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm sure it was a great experience to be up there, but the shapes aren't doing enough for me for me to consider this a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but the image is not talking to me. I don't believe this one is among our finest, sorry Poco2 06:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I love mountain landscapes. and for me this is a nice picture. But the left side from the middle to the top could have been sharper. The WB. is on the warm side for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:A nymphaea capensis in Vietnam.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 17:56:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Nymphaea
  •   Info A purple waterlily (nymphaea capensis) after a rain in Vietnam, take by me. -- Thanhdien8421 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Displeasing noise at higher resolutions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The technical quality is far below FP standards. There are heavy compression artefacts and the left crop cuts off one of the petals.--Peulle (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your idea. This is the first time I take part in this competion, so I've not had many experience yet. I will try to improve it later and I hope you will help me.Thanhdien8421 (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
If you haven't already, you might consider going to COM:Photography critiques for advice, or to COM:QIC, which has relatively tough standards but not as tough as FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!Thanhdien8421 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --67.68.177.192 23:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked
  •   Comment It’s a pity that the image quality is low; else, this would be a wonderful image IMHO. --Aristeas (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Stift Wilhering Kirche Orgel 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 07:09:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done Slightly brightened --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive architecture, impressive photo. Not so impressive restoration of the ceiling fresco ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Charles (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support good --67.68.177.192 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great motif and detail, would it be possible to specify in the panorama template how many frames have been used here instead os saying "multiple"? --Poco2 06:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great! --Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Sella da Ciandepinëi.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 07:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
  •   Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Simple composition, great resolution. I like how the shadow emphasizes the mountain massif above. Maybe cropping a bit of the right part would be nice so the bottom of the valley-like shadow is in the middle of the picture. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - A sort of magic mountain. I love the textures and shapes of the rock, the road with hairpin curves and everything else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Although as Podzemnik says, centering the view on the massif would feel better. --GeXeS (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice but it is tilted in ccw direction, see houses on the left and trees in the middle and on the left, could you fix that? File size IMHO again too big specially considering that the sharpness is just ok (but perfectly understandable for this far shot) Poco2 06:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Beautiful and of very high quality. There are stitching errors at the bottom of the picture (the lines of the cableway are interrupted at two points) but that appears minor given the scale of the scenery. -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Amphitheatre Bay after a storm, Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 06:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Cyprus (Cyprus doesn't have its section yet)
  •   Info All by me. It's Amphitheatre Bay, Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus, about a minute after a storm. You can still see rain in the clouds. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting atmosphere. Could perhaps benefit from a slight brightening. -- King of ♠ 06:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
True true. Thanks for the review, I brightened it up a bit. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Lovely. On brightening, though: The brighter version may look better in isolation, but you're giving something up, which is the atmosphere of an impending thunderstorm. You might consider splitting the difference somewhere between the two versions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ikan, I tried to find a sweet middle spot. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I like it. I also misread "a minute a storm". I thought you meant a minute before a storm, but I see from the file description that it's a minute after a storm, clearly with the sun coming out behind it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hups, I forgot to put the word "after" into the description above. Fixed, thanks for the hint. --Podzemnik (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin - nuit (Colmar).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2019 at 13:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Prefecture of Haut-Rhin at night in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). -- Gzen92 [discuter] 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gzen92 [discuter] 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm not ready to vote, so I'll just mention what I'm seeing. It's a nice photo, though not huge compared to the building photos we've mostly been considering at FPC lately. Sharpness of the blue-lit areas is not overwhelming. Also, the symmetry is nice, but the building is cropped on both sides. Overall, it's definitely a QI, but I'm unsure it's an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I guess I don't think it's quite an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough subject isolation between the dark parts of the building and the night sky. Try again during blue hour. -- King of ♠ 02:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Angle makes it look tilted; also not sharp up front. And per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Arnsberg-Panorama Herbst 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2019 at 09:23:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
  •   Info Panoramic view from Ehmsendenkmal over Arnsberg. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Many pixels, but I don't find these houses particularly exciting -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Basile, the way you feel about this is sort of the way I've been feeling about the picture of a highrise development in Jersey City that's nominated further down the page. In this case, the composition works for me, maybe partly because of all the different orientations of the houses and the interspersed greenery. Either way, I do enjoy this, and it's also impressive, as usual from Milseburg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile. Many pixels do not a picture make. The view is random and the sides are heavily shaded. -- Colin (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral -- This is a very useful picture for Wikipedia articles on Arnberg, but I'm afraid it does not have a sufficient wow-factor to qualify as a featured picture. With apologies, MartinD (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, although it would probably qualify for both QI and VI. --El Grafo (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. I don't find the shady corners too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile, and some buildings are not straight (bottom, right but also some in the middle-left). I can add notes if you like. Poco2 06:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Marina di Pescara, December 2014.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 23:55:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Is there something I can do to fix it?--Earthh (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You can contact the photographer to request another version modified from the RAW file. Though I'm not sure this will succeed anyway.   Oppose for now -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile. No, once a JPG is over-exposed, there often isn't much one can do. The composition is rather messy. The mountains are impressive but the foreground is random. -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. The composition is at least active, and I wouldn't call it completely random - it's framed by 2 masts on either side - but the overexposure is problematic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I also find the composition crowded.--Peulle (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Overexposed, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Bridge over the River Soar, Abbey Park (geograph 4718856).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 17:26:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fluweelpootje, (Flammulina velutipes), (d.j.b.) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 16:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category:Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Flammulina velutipes.
  •   Info Enokitake. (Flammulina velutipes). Wet rained little mushrooms (Enokitake) on the dead wood of an elder (Sambucus nigra).
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice, but IMO, a little too grainy to be great. Could you do something about that, if others agree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.06.18.-08-Viernheim--Roter Fingerhut.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 11:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Plantaginaceae
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not as good as File:Bloemen en knoppen van Vingerhoedskruid (Digitalis purpurea). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpg which shows various stages and the internals of the flower. This is a very common flower so I would expect something special about the specimen or the artistic composition for FP. (Btw, Hockei, "Plants" is a huge FP category, so please help reviewers and closers by locating the section of that page -- I've added Plantaginaceae to the link above). -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I won't assess the other picture mentioned above and I won't let me play off against others. The other picture has a different composition. In my picture the blossoms hanging down and more other details make it interesting such as the colours and the grass in the background. The both pictures are not comparable. --Hockei (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A Qi for sure, but Colin is right about why it isn't an FP compared to the other picture of the same species. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.06.17.-19-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Roetelmaus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 11:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info As announced, the other version. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the other one, the flash on the fur is not best, and the "looking down" is not immersive like the best animal photography. -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Cute, and a lot bigger than the ~10 cm in length that this vole would have been. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harshly lit, doesn't wow me. -- King of ♠ 05:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Lots of EV, though … --El Grafo (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3153-9.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 08:38:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 08:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 08:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very nice composition and light. I will support when you fix the dust spots. I see one somewhat to the right of and below the upper left corner. There are three more above the trees toward the right, but those could be unsharp birds, and if so and you therefore want to keep them, that's OK with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Sorry. The dust spot and the blurry birds are removed now. --XRay talk 08:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, Sir, but why don't I see this on the regular FPC page? I saw this only because I looked at the "File usage on Commons" list when seeing this file as a QIC nominee. If others are having the same problem as me in seeing this nomination, that would surely damage its chances. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why. I just added the nomination to the list (again). May be someone removed the nomination accidentally. --XRay talk 10:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Please see [1]. --XRay talk 10:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/Germany

File:Convolvulus hawk-moth (Agrius convolvuli) 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 09:19:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info This type of Sphingidae (about 45mm long) has a huge proboscis. The wings beat at around 45 beats/second, so it is not possible to freeze wing motion in the wild. From Bulgaria. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support considering that this was captured in flight: wow! --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I already liked the photo and considered the motion blur appropriate, but I'm more impressed, considering that it beats its wings 45x a second. Technical question, though: Why wouldn't you use a shorter exposure than 1/1,600 of a second? Granted that I was only using an Android and mostly photographing butterflies that had alighted for a fraction of a second or more, but I was having much better luck last summer in getting sharp pictures of butterflies with rapidly beating wings when I shortened my exposure to 1/4,090 of a second. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm already at maximum aperture (F5.6) and would have gone to 1/2000 and ISO 800 if I had time. I find that although sharpness would be better at 1/4000, overall quality (for print or FP pixel-peeping) really deteriorates above ISO 800. With this sort of photography I use a preset of 1/1600 or 1/2000 sec. If I leave it up to the camera's brain (SCN Sports), it can get confused: if it sees the insect's body as pretty still it reduces shutter speed. If it sees the wings it might select 1/8000 and a very high ISO. On my Canon 80D I have two presets (C1 and C2). I program one at 1/1600 (TV = shutter priority: S on Nikon I think) and one at 1/2000. I then get better depth of field if the light happens to be really good. Not this time. Charles (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Brown hairstreak (Thecla betulae) Bulgaria.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 09:23:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Newport Jersey City June 2015 panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 06:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I agree. I considered opposing, as I don't see a great composition, but the composition is not bad, helped by the wooden spikes, and as you say, the photo is technically very good, so I don't see the point in standing in the way of consensus on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I see this as the latest of King's series of skylines of the Northeastern United States. I think this view is even better now, and I've been thinking myself of taking the train down to Hoboken and shooting that view. From the promenades between the station and the development a really amazing view is possible that takes in both Newport, which looks really cool with newer buildings like the Ellipse going up, and the Lower Manhattan skyline with the new 1 WTC. With a little of the trees along the promenade on the lower right, and those old bollards. It's one of a slowly increasing number of places in and around New York which almost make you think you're in China.

    Maybe this spring ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Julia Shaw 2018-03-10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 05:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Boris Breuer, uploaded by Guestwires, nominated by Yann (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice professional quality portrait, high resolution. -- Yann (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. It feels slightly unusual that there's so much room to her right, but somehow, it works. Very sharp, beautiful subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - That's part of the viewer's experience. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp and focused. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The bright and contrasty lighting helps accentuate the subject. Could use perhaps a little bit more headroom, but otherwise great portrait. -- King of ♠ 06:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The strange background makes this special. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, useful -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 20:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The DOF could be a very bit deeper (see the fingers on the left). But aside of that, it is one of the best portrait I've seen. Quality and composition. --Hockei (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the idea of her being off-center. Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Forte de Copacabana 10-crop.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 03:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info created by Halleypo - uploaded and nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A nice scene with a lot going on in it, but at 7.3 MP I'd like to see better sharpness. -- King of ♠ 03:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per King. I agree with everything he says, but the photo is so beautiful. No possibility of a larger resolution, I take it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm not finding much more here than a holiday snap, I'm afraid. Technical issues per KoH. -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harsh light, too much haze and relatively small resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others; blown surf is difficult not to see. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Moscow VDNKh Space Pavilion asv2018-08 img5.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 21:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
  •   Info Dome interior of the 32th Pavilion of VDNKh Park Moscow ("Space Exploration" Pavilion, built in 1954) All by A.Savin --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm disappointed you weren't able to get the entire dome in the picture. I feel like even if it's partly blocked by other objects, it might be more satisfying for the entire area of the dome to be in the picture, not cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak support Only because I think it was probably not possible to get the whole dome in the frame (without merging separate images into a vertorama, anyway, which may have created a different set of problems. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Certainly a QI but I don't find the composition compelling. The dome is cut on two sides, and the overlaying part at the bottom distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The crop is a shortcoming, maybe an inevitable one, but the light is great. --Aristeas (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Arcade du Cinquantenaire (DSCF7405).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 15:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Belgium
  •   Info by User:Trougnouf
  •   Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks like the subject is naturally asymmetric on the far extremes - that's OK, but I'd prefer if the asymmetric bits were cropped off. -- King of ♠ 22:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the asymmetry of the building and prefer the crop as is, framing the colonnade. -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The ghost flag is absolutely central, and quite disturbing -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose oer Basile. There's also a blurred person as you move to the left. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 09:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Hi Colin, I know that f/16 probably was chosen for maximising the exposure time but you can do that by using a second ND filter two. The problem is that on Micro Four Thirds, you'll suffer quality loss up from smaller apertures than f/8. f/16 on MFT is the equivalent of f/32 on Full Frame. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think a 16:9 crop would be better: there's too much grey sea. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, your suggestion is a better crop. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral on technical reasons (regardless of the crop, but I do agree it will be an improvement). Note that B&W does tend to hide flaws such as grain and unsharpness compared to the color image. -- King of ♠ 03:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support, a bit noisy :\ ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Info 16:9 crop as suggested. —Bruce1eetalk 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support - I think what Gerifalte is seeing as noise, I'm seeing as grain. Anyway, I like the photo, but it's a close case on whether it should be featured or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support impressive composition, not too happy about the noise --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   strong support I don't care about the noise. I could print this at A3 size and given an appropriate viewing distance it would not be apparent. What I do find a bit irritating is the sharpening halo along the bottom of the bridge. And maybe I'd try taking the edge off the highlights in the sky a bit more; I find those almost-white patches a bit distracting. Otherwise: just plain awesome. --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a good example of long-exposure to blur the sky and sea, providing contrast between soft and hard, formless and form. It is a picture to be enjoyed as a whole, not under a magnifying glass. The white cables against dark sky are a good catch. Even with this 16:9 crop it is still 15MP so pixel level sharpness or noise is not important for this kind of image, and would be irrelevant if printed. -- Colin (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- An excellent picture! MartinD (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Noisy but very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Great view but too much noise, it needs to be adressed --Poco2 06:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great (the often mentioned noise doesn’t bother me, per El Grafo and Colin). --Aristeas (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 058.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 16:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
  •   Info Walking the Planken Wambuis from Mossel. Morning mist hangs over the Planken Wambuis.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice atmosphere. -- King of ♠ 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Another path with nobody in it. I'm not really convinced by the composition. The weather isn't quite misty enough to be an interesting feature. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reluctant   Oppose per Colin. Yes, beautiful atmosphere, but the composition falls a bit flat to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support. Very nice atmosphere. And landscape with nobody on this abandoned place is very fine me. -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition, per Colin. -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Might work if the path divided at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice shot but IMHO still lacks wow effect Poco2 20:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin and Poco. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too ordinary in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3216-22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 07:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 07:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Nice lines and beautiful sunlight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - A courageous shot, but well done. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop below at the pond is too tight and bothers me. It would work better for me with crop above in between 16:9 and 16:10, so that the treetops on the left are not cut. --Hockei (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Saint Gerald abbey church of Aurillac 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 15:15:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
  •   Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A couple of days have gone by without votes, so I think maybe more people feel like I do - I'll be the first to say it: The standard for church ceilings is very high, so this doesn't quite float my boat. It has some cool patterns, but that's about it; it's not quite up there with the other photos in the category.--Peulle (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC).
  •   Moderate support It's not perfect, yes, but I like it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. There are lots more "wow" ceilings on Commons, so can't be "among the finest". -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain Feature picture candidates of architecture should come with an informative description. This photo has been taken in an abbey church with a long and complex building history. When was this vault constructed, were there any reconstruction/refurbishment works executed in the 19th century or later? Is this the crossing vault? How is this picture oriented? @Colin: Many of the Gothic vaults of medieval monasteries were not designed with “wow” in mind, this would have been distracting. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
    • AFBorchert I agree the architects did not have FPC in mind. Scottish Presbyterian churches are rather plain too when compared with those in other countries. In the end we are here to judge an image for wow and if the subject lacks wow then it is hard overcome that. National Geographic photographer Jim Richardson once said "If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff". Of course, pictures such as this are still valuable to Commons. -- Colin (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - My understanding is that the vaults in Gothic cathedrals were indeed intended to awe, as they represented the vault of the Heavens, and the stained glass windows, aside from telling sacred stories, were meant to filter colored light into the cathedrals like Heavenly jewels. In addition, with their tall ceilings and towers, Gothic cathedrals were commonly visible for miles as pilgrims walked to church. So I would definitely disagree that they were not designed with "wow" in mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Beskid Mały Mountains (PL).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 11:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose On any other photo site, this image would have people (or animals) in it. A movie director would be shouting "Action!". The scene is a great one, but it needs something in it. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   conditional support It's nice, real nice, but the categories need improving.--Peulle (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Agreed on categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    • what is wrong with the categories? English version of the park? --Pudelek (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The categories are fine, but I think you need to add one for crepuscular rays. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, I immediately thought of Ermell's picture that you linked first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The light and shadow play of the sun's rays should be more contrastful IMO. --Hockei (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose Having done something similar once, I really wanted to be able to support this. But ... per Colin, there should be something to draw us to the center of the frame, or per Hockei the crepuscular rays should have more contrast. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Colin here Poco2 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the mood --Llez (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Viru Bog at winter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 16:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Actually, it's not ... look closely and you can see the color on the tree trunks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
You're right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
And I'd prefer if it were really black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel--Ermell (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness is not impressive, but still acceptable. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 05:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Spitzkoppe, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 14-22 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 21:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of Spitzkoppe, a group of bald granite peaks located between Usakos and Swakopmund in the Namib desert of Namibia. All by me, Poco2 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like Mercury after being terraformed. Makes me thirsty just scrolling through it—the very definition of "arid". Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The central frame suffers from camera shake, I guess. Or whatever, the image is unsharp in the center. Very sorry, as it is really impressive. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't find it unsharp. The landscape is very impressive and I really enjoyed exploring the panorama, including the village close to the mountain in the center. However, I think the panorama is tilted. The right side is lower than the left side and the telecommunication tower on the hill on the right side is leaning right. So I think it needs ACW rotation. Could you have a look at that? Maybe it's just a coincidence. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Podzemnik: I've applied a slight tilt and some perspective correction, also some extra sharpening, FYI Uoaei1 Poco2 12:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Gnosis (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 19:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 11:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Alfred Stieglitz (scan by Google Art Project), uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It has been hailed as one of the greatest photographs of all time because it captures in a single image both a formative document of its time and one of the first works of artistic modernism. cf. Wikipedia. -- Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would eventually propose File:The Steerage MET DP232922, grayscale.jpg as an alternative: smaller, but less noise. Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You're the nominator, so which one do you prefer? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Personally, I prefer the grayscale version, but I know some people will object. Ultimately, I don't care which one is featured. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm finding the sepia version below better. But which was original? Did he originally print it in sepia tones or grayscale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I take it, no-one has an answer for this question? Then how are we supposed to vote, and what criteria are you all using to decide which one to vote for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: This was recorded as a black and white negative. That's why I prefer a grayscale version. Beside, the color versions vary with time, so we can't really know which tone was the original print in 1907. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand. Though I do think the sepia version is better, maybe it would be more faithful to the original to do a black & white version of that file... Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree that it's better for the reasons you state. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support While this one seems slightly tilted compared to the grayscale one, that's fixable, and this one captures more detail. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case the left, bottom and right edges are all straight in this one; only the top is curved. The other image has more tilts, though the top is more symmetrically curved. I suspect they come from different prints. I would be opposed to "fixing" this -- it's a faithful scan by professionals. In the end, the print is what it is. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Gnosis (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--KlauRau (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical
The chosen alternative is: File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project, from Getty.jpg


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Sun 17 Feb → Fri 22 Feb
Mon 18 Feb → Sat 23 Feb
Tue 19 Feb → Sun 24 Feb
Wed 20 Feb → Mon 25 Feb
Thu 21 Feb → Tue 26 Feb
Fri 22 Feb → Wed 27 Feb

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)Edit

Wed 13 Feb → Fri 22 Feb
Thu 14 Feb → Sat 23 Feb
Fri 15 Feb → Sun 24 Feb
Sat 16 Feb → Mon 25 Feb
Sun 17 Feb → Tue 26 Feb
Mon 18 Feb → Wed 27 Feb
Tue 19 Feb → Thu 28 Feb
Wed 20 Feb → Fri 01 Mar
Thu 21 Feb → Sat 02 Mar
Fri 22 Feb → Sun 03 Mar

Closing a featured picture promotion requestEdit

The botEdit

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedureEdit

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting requestEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2019.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Archiving a withdrawn nominationEdit

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the purpose that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|category=|sig=--~~~~}}
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.