Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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 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 documents

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."

Photographs

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 audio

Set nominations

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 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 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.

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Étang de Thau, Sète cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2018 at 11:12:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mont-Saint-Eloi Abbaye R05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 21:06:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vista desde la Autopista de la Cima del Mundo, Yukón, Canada, 2017-08-28, DD 48.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 13:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •    Info View of an unpaved section of the Top of the World Highway, Yukon, Canada. The highway is so named because, along much of its length, it skirts the crest of the hills, giving looks down on the valleys. It is also one of the most northerly highways in the world at those latitudes and only open in the summer months. Poco2 13:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Poco2 13:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Neutral I like the subject and how the road snakes up into the distance, but I don't like what seems to be oversharpening, which is quite visible when looking at it full size.--Peulle (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    New version... --Poco2 16:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Qualified support Knowing what it's like to shoot landscapes like this in that part of the world, and looking at the previous versions, I think you've done the best you could. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose This new version with the cut tree on the left and 40% of boring sky doesn't make the photo awesome in my view. That pine tree should be in or out of the composition, but not sectioned in the middle. Could become a good QI with a better crop, though not sure the content is special enough to succeed here -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de San Juan Bautista, Ágreda, Soria, España, 2018-03-29, DD 40-42 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 12:33:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Peponocephala electra Mayotte.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 11:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •    Info created by Cyril di Bisceglie - uploaded by FredD - nominated by FredD -- FredD (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Outstanding wild picture of an extremely rare marine mammal, best one on the whole web. FredD (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Unsharp, and no wow even if it were. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Daniel. Properly a VI, but not more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Exceptional image, but it is not very lucky in this competition where there is a deviation of the votes which confuse quality and exception. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support the purpose to FPC is to promote the finest, I challenge someone to find a better image of this animal on the web. Try and you will see that this one is of course one of the finest image that you can see of this mammal. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Christian Ferrer Triton (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Two water buffaloes bathing at sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 02:40:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There was a third buffalo on the left, half visible and rather disturbing in the composition. I made several attempts of cropping before opting for this simple square. Thanks for your review -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Old woman of Don Puay white shirt grey hair wrinkled skin.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2018 at 02:42:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Probably this right thing you're talking about is a fisher net. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I know she is old and probably a bit worn out so she hunches. Unfortunately this angle makes her head look too big for her body, it almost looks like the image of the head is tacked onto a pic of the body. The light on her face is great but the whole thing looks a little strange. --Cart (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand, but some deviation from this angle or posture would have been better. --Cart (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Per Cart. It may well be "life" but as a photographer you have choices about angle-of-view, how to crop and whether to use a longer more-flattening focal length. Skin looks like too much noise reduction applied. Btw, I'm really, not keen to reduce photos of people to simply the sum of some (often negative) visible attributes: old woman; white shirt; grey hair; wrinkled skin. Doesn't seem very respectful. In the other photo, she's a "grandmother", which is a nicer way to describing a fellow human being. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Info about changing the angle. This person has a twisted back File:Old_woman_of_Don_Puay_grey_hair_wrinkled_skin_twisted_back.jpg. This was the best angle I could get -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That photo is much better wrt her posture in the composition, giving a flow to the head and body. Nothing that looks 'tacked on' in that. Her head is gently titled and the neck creates a nice line down to her blose which is so generous that you don't think about her back if hadn't been in the file name. --Cart (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I prefer this picture than the other one -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Cart and Basile, above. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:20180520 Peona with Oxythyrea funesta 850 9353.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2018 at 11:46:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Don't know what exact kind of Peona that is. --Granada (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Neither do I, but if you nominate an arthropod (and this is a beetle), you need at least to mention there is an arthropod on your image. Now done, ok. I've also added the category Coleoptera on flowers -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Tozina (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Background is kind of distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Lighting is harsh and beetle is facing away. Charles (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

  

I withdraw my nomination

File:Bosc's fringe-toed lizards (Acanthodactylus boskianus asper) love bite.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2018 at 11:42:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •    InfoLiz had found her soul mate. It was love at first bite.
    A male holding onto a female with a bite is part of the courtship ritual of a number of reptile species. It is rare to see the white of the eye of a lizard. He does look pretty happy with life in the Jordanian desert! All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Charles (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Good catch ! -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - Fantastic! How much time did you spend in the Jordanian desert? I'm so impressed with the photos you took there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • 1 1/2 days, most time looking at ruins! Charles (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Amazing! Are you going to upload pictures of ruins, too? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
No time! wildlife takes all my time... Charles (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Tozina (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Podzemnik (talk) 01:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportDaniel Case (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Get a room... --Cart (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Pretty cool --Poco2 12:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Ikan -- P999 (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Asked my husband if I should bite him - he answered: No. A kiss is OK. --Schnobby (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support wow! - Benh (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Sankt Veit an der Glan Bürgergasse Klosterkirche Zu Unserer Lieben Frau 18052018 3372.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2018 at 08:05:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vitoria - Parque de Olárizu - Niebla y cencellada -BT- 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2018 at 18:20:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •    Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I've used B&W because as in many foggy, misty, winterly pictures it allows to work better with contrasts. I personally like the melancholic winter scene, the leading lines of the bikeway and the trees. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Very pleasant Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Wow, the fogg makes this photo nice while it's mostly disturbing --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportMeiræ 02:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --XRay talk 09:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Cart (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Tozina (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Podzemnik (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support A fine example of an image enhanced by grayscale Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Well done Poco2 12:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- P999 (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Dэя-Бøяg 14:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Panorama auf dem Roten Kliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2018 at 17:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Borboleta monarca.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2018 at 11:07:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of the issues raised by the oppose !votes Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Daniel Case (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Barn on Mastlé mountain Gherdëina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 19:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •    Oppose Thinking about it, I think the location has potential of reaching FP, but this current photo has a little bit too boring light for me to go "wow". With more exciting light, I think the shot could succeed.--Peulle ( talk) 18:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I thought of going back there but snow conditions have changed ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Weak support I understand the opposes, but after looking it over closely it's enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Weak support Per Daniel. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Weak support from me, too. I like it but would like a bit more room on top above the rocks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Снежинка на разноцветном фоне.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 18:21:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Well it looks very messy now and the background colours don't seem right for this kind of image. Neither true-to-life or artistic. Charles (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In this a totally agree with Charles, the background is not a good choice. --Cart (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Tozina (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose for now. The image hasn't been cleaned up for presentation, which I'd expect at FP, and defects are visible at thumb size. I can have a go at removing the blemishes this weekend if nobody else does. -- Colin (talk) 07:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Colin.--Peulle (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Charles, Cart and Colin -- P999 (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Colin—I can see the dust spots at thumb. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Info The dust spots belong to the image : for snowflakes to form, you need a cristallisation center ("nucleus"). All these dust spots are future snowflakes, and there is one at the very center of the snowflake. They also act as a "reality proof" : this way you know that the picture is a true one and has not been made thanks to a computer program. FredD (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment I don't buy the future snowflake argument. Charles (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Przełęcz Karkonoska (Slezské sedlo, Spindlerpass) - view from Odrodzenie.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 17:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Śnieżne Kotły (Snežné jámy, Schneegruben), Krkonoše mountains 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 17:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Anshan train station.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 10:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •    Info created by Jan Alonzo - uploaded by Rincewind42 - nominated by ParadiseDesertOasis8888 -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I'm not seeing this as sufficiently high quality for FP, both because of the object near the top, the perspective warp and the light rendering.--Peulle (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment While this photo is large enough, it has the same perspective distortion and some other issues as the one you nominated earlier. I think it would be a big help for you to read the Image Guidelines first, so you know what is expected from an FP. You could also take a look at COM:PT where photo techniques and terms are explained. If you know some of this, your nominations are more likely to be sucessful. Best, --Cart (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Even apart from the technical issues, it just looks too ordinary. Daniel Case (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the technical quality is insufficient Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

-- Basile Morin (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Addis Ababa City view.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 10:36:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •    Info created by Ninaras - uploaded by Ninaras - nominated by ParadiseDesertOasis8888 -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I nominated this picture because I feel like it illustrates the development that Ethiopia is going through in that it shows poorly made buildings in a crowded area right next to high-rises under construction which dramatically shows the vast difference between Ethiopia's not-so-distant past and its not-so-distant future. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I see the nominator's point but the image is not that evocative for me personally.--Peulle (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Per Peulle. --Karelj (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Light and composition (cut feet for the most obvious element) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Ebensfeld-Ansberg-Maintal-Staffelberg-Pano-P1060051.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2018 at 07:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

All by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  •    Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Too much fog and dull colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
   Comment Not fog but the haze of a frosty morning.--Ermell (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Interesting, detailed and amazing view. The light is right for this intention. --Milseburg (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Basile, although like Milseburg I do want to give the photographer credit for the detail. Daniel Case (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Palestine sunbird (Cinnyris osea osea) male.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2018 at 21:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks. Happy to crop a bit off the left if there is a consensus, but I positioned the vertical plant and the bird's eye on the rule of thirds. Charles (talk) 08:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Stift Melk Nordseite 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2018 at 20:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Austria
  •    Info North side of Melk Abbey and entry of Melk river into the Danube. View from Emmersdorf, Lower Austria. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --XRay talk 05:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Ermell (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose The trees hide a big part of the building, which is also in the shadow. The hazy hills in the background are not interesting. --Yann (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportChristian Ferrer (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Dull light, unwashed colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Weak oppose per Basile; this might be featurable with a stronger sky and different light. Also in this case, I am not sure about what exactly is going on with the left edge of the dome—it looks kind of misprocessed, like it was a ripped paper edge. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Per Basile Poco2 12:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Iglesia católica, Beaver Creek, Yukón, Canadá, 2017-08-25, DD 13.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2018 at 19:31:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •    Info Catholic church of Our Lady of Grace, Beaver Creek, Yukon, Canada. This original small church belongs to the Diocese of Whitehorse and was built by Father Morriset in 1962 using a Butler hut (a redesign of the famous Quonset hut) left by the US Army after construction of the Alaska Highway was completed. The church is located in an area with a very low population density and Beaver Creek, the last populated place in Canada before Alaska, has a population of 93 (2016). All by me, Poco2 19:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Poco2 19:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Nothing special for FP, good image but no wow. --Karelj (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak    Support I'm not sure, but IMO the shadows are a little bit disturbing. But I like the composition. --XRay talk 05:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Karelj.--Peulle (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Not loving the composition, especially the trees cut on top, and I find the image too busy -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per others; I can see what might have been but this just doesn't work for so many reasons, mainly the composition and colors. Daniel Case (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment @Karelj, XRay, ParadiseDesertOasis8888, Peulle, Basile Morin:, Daniel Case: I reduced the shadows, cropped a bit on the left to improve the composition and "cooled" it a bit. --Poco2 11:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment IMO still OK. And I like the composition. --XRay talk 12:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Not much difference for me, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - I'm surprised by how big a difference the cropping made. This composition is harmonious to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment Looking at it again today, I think I see better where the problem is. The very high crop, much higher than the church and the bell, seems to have this purpose : include the tall trees. Unfortunately, those tall trees are cut on top, which makes the composition awkward (in my view) -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    I withdraw my nominationPoco2 12:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Ballet, 1940245.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 15:43:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •    Info created by ivanovgood, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Yann (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose The scene is quite nice, but at this resolution I have a problem with the level of quality; I just don't think it's one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I think that quality is acceptable and in this area we don't have much, so a plus for me for originality Poco2 19:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Fine for 10 years ago but not acceptable for a studio image from 2017. Our guidelines strongly discourage downsizing. High JPG compression and posterised lighting. No colourspace specified/embedded. Yann, none of our Commons regular photographers would get away with nominating 3.95MP studio image in 2018. Why don't you try contacting the photographer to upload their 16MP original (assuming it is like their other photos) and we can then judge it against what the finest photographers on Commons are nominating in 2018. -- Colin (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Colin: What makes you know that it is a studio image (i.e. not a real show)? Regards, Yann (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Because all their other photos are studio photos. And the lighting. -- Colin (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That this is staged was my first reaction to it. Had it been a real show, there wouldn't have been a wall that close behind the dancers. The flow of her hair and the fabric would also require a big fan or wind machine, you don't get that from motion alone. Plus the light, stage spotlights create much harder shadows than this. (I've seen hundreds of ballets and danced myself, so gut feeling.) --Cart (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. I wasn't sure. Yann (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per others. Very obvious posterization. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Neutral torn between Diego and Colin... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Basically per Poco. The only weakness (I agree) is the resolution. It's only a 4 Mpx image, well. But the minimum accepted here is 2 Mpx, necessary for a good quality print. That's twice bigger than the minimum. Sure it's not huge, it's not 4K for example. But this is clearly a professional picture, taken with technical accessories, and rarer thing, involving professional dancers. How many of us regular photographers take and nominate on Commons such kind of original pictures ? This image is special in its kind, and will be interesting to enrich the collection, because it doesn't look like any other. I also rather like the composition with the red scarf floating in the wind and the entwined people choreographing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Basile Morin, question. Are you going to commit from now on to only reviewing other images here at 3.95MP, i.e. long axis no larger than 2400px. That means never again complaining about noise, CA, sharpness, oversharpening halos, etc, etc. Because, from 24/36/42/50MP camera downsized to 3.95MP, none of those things will be visible. The 2MP standard was set when a TV resolution was 720 × 525 (0.38MP) and HDTV wasn't available. This doesn't even fit a QHD monitor, never mind the 4K TVs being sold in supermarkets. This resolution is too low to print even one page of a glossy magazine. How about if the rest of us started uploading at 3.95MP too ... would you still support? I agree it is a well taken image, if a bit contrived/unrealistic, but I don't see why the photographer can't be asked to upload the 16MP original. -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sharpness, noise, etc. are important to take in consideration when the size of the image is essential. Landscapes for example. This kind of picture is special, perhaps limit with the size, and of course it would be better to get a higher res, but in the uncertainty I decide to support as it is -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Sunlight on beech leaves in Gullmarsskogen ravine 5.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2018 at 09:43:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fagaceae
  •    Info Let's try this one instead. This is brighter and more about the structure of the leaves than graphical forms. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Cart (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Nice. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- P999 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I like how the leaves fill the frame in this one. The light is good filtering through the leaves and outlining the branches and hairs. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - I think the other photo has a much better composition, with the bright leaves extending diagonally from the upper right to the lower left. The light is nice in both pictures, but this one feels to me like a photo of a phenomenon, not a picture with such a compelling composition. At least 3 people would seem to disagree with me. I'll live with this a little longer, because there's something to be said about the light itself creating a shape, but I'm currently leaning toward opposing this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Nothing special for FP, good image but no wow. --Karelj (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Karelj and my comments above. I really don't understand why some people prefer this to the other photo. The pattern of leaves in this photo feels random and not compelling to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --XRay talk 05:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose per Karelj and Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Colin. I love leafglow. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Tozina (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC) Thank you for showing the leaves' details through contrast by shadow and light
  •    Oppose Per Karelj --Poco2 12:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Wainui Bay 20.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 22:59:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Münster, Beresa, Mercedes-Benz C-Klasse Cabrio -- 2018 -- 1757.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 17:00:27 (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 17:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- XRay talk 17:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support A very professional shot of a car's detail. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Peulle (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Suisant7 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Per Johann --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportDaniel Case (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    SupportChristian Ferrer (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Good composition. The silhouette reflecting in the mirror is well done : seat looking like a passenger, and this element of the background leads the sight back to the foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Weak oppose Sorry, this subject is not amazing me, quality is great and the composition looks fine (although the ultimative plus would have been a nice motif in the mirror), but all in all I don't believe it's outstanding. Poco2 13:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

File:ET Tigray asv2018-01 img28 Debre Damo Monastery.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 15:27:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Petřín tower 05 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 13:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This shouldn't be declared a requirement for support. Most people here are photographers in the first place - not botanists. ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I understand that, but this is FPC, and I think that for this photo to be truly outstanding, the tree, which is a primary subject and for its particular shape as a deciduous tree with leaves, really should be identified. Johann, if you're confident, we can add that category and be done with it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not absolutely sure about the determination of a fraxinus excelsior (ash, European ash, common ash), but the shape of the leaves give a strong hint to my conjesture. I am around 95% confident that the deciduous tree is an ash. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your categorization Johann. -- Suisant7 (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support The tree looks like a fraxinus excelsior. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Just something delightfully unpretentious about it. Daniel Case (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --XRay talk 05:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Karelj (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Composition doesn't work for me. Strained. Charles (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Looks good to me Poco2 13:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 20:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Nordkirchen, Naturschutzgebiet Ichterloh -- 2018 -- 2327-31.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 11:19:29 (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 11:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- XRay talk 11:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support - You captured a glorious moment in such a way that we who weren't there can hold onto it. And what a fine composition! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 07:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Nice clouds, but nothing really special. Yann (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I'm sure the scene looked fabulous in reality, but this image doesn't look "real" to me. The tone mapping is way too obvious for my taste. I think what puts me off here is the section of sky adjacent to the trees on the left. It has too much of a "happy" blue that doesn't really fit the over-all dark and moody feel. --El Grafo (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Exactly per El Grafo -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Nice landscape but having the sun obscured by the clouds gives the ground here a cold, unpleasant blue tint and the sky looks a bit freakish and strangely processed. I think this is the first time I've seen a rapeseed field deliberately shot in shadow. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Ikan; I don't find the image unrealistic or unnatural. Daniel Case (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
It was indeed an impressive weather. First blue sky and then the clouds gathering. --XRay talk 04:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Per Yann and El Grafo. --Karelj (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Spruce tree stump in Gullmarsskogen ravine.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 09:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •    Info The ravine in Gullmarsskogen Nature Reserve is carved out by a stream and tall trees grow both in and around the ravine. The ravine is in an almost perpetual dusk, even on sunny days, the sun only pierce the foliage with bright spots of light. (More info at the category) This creates an almost magical light down in the ravine, but it is also very difficult to handle when shooting. Even HDR is sometimes not enough with the extremely bright spots next to darkness. I have tried to fix up the photos of the scenes as they appear IRL. I really like this tall tree stump with the small new sapling growing in front of it. A promise of new life next to the old dead tree. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Cart (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support I like light and the shadows. --XRay talk 11:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per XRay --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Also per Xray, an excellent composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Shows that that "forest primeval" quality doesn't always require a low-angle shot of an endless expanse of uniformly tall trees. Daniel Case (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Daniel -- P999 (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose Quality is good here, but I'm just not wowed by this kind of shots --Poco2 13:12, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry to disappoint. Panoramas down in a ravine, not a good idea.   --Cart (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Au Vieux Paris d'Arcole, 24 Rue Chanoinesse, 75004 Paris, 1 May 2018.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2018 at 08:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •    Info created by Pedro Szekely (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I like the scene but I don't like the harsh lighting. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Opposeper Basotxerri.   Weak support now that Cart fixed the highlights. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment - The opposers have a point, but I don't think the highlights are irretrievably blown. Dialing down their brightness just a bit would make this featurable, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Paris 16:, Basotxerri, Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek since the author of this is not active here on Commons, I took the liberty of fixing the light a bit, soften it. If you don't like it please revert it. --Cart (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support A really pleasant scene I would very much like to be in. :) --Cart (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I looked at this a few times now and I definitely quite like the scene; it's reminiscent of an old-style street photography or an early 1900s painting. Yet I don't feel the quality is quite up to scratch. Perhaps another similar shot can be made in the future.--Peulle (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per Peulle. The right crop bothers me slightly, but it's quite a good scene. Quality is fine to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support per others -- Suisant7 (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I do not like the crop and per Puelle. --Karelj (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Fri 18 May → Wed 23 May
Sat 19 May → Thu 24 May
Sun 20 May → Fri 25 May
Mon 21 May → Sat 26 May
Tue 22 May → Sun 27 May
Wed 23 May → Mon 28 May

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

Mon 14 May → Wed 23 May
Tue 15 May → Thu 24 May
Wed 16 May → Fri 25 May
Thu 17 May → Sat 26 May
Fri 18 May → Sun 27 May
Sat 19 May → Mon 28 May
Sun 20 May → Tue 29 May
Mon 21 May → Wed 30 May
Tue 22 May → Thu 31 May
Wed 23 May → Fri 01 Jun

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 (except to add categories on the file page). 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.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a human user to complete it.
  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/May 2018), 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/May 2018.
  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/May 2018), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.