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


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


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 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."


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}} -- ~~~~.


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:Praying monks and nuns in the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple of Singapore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 04:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Forest road Slavne 2017 G9.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 12:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Haría - Lanzarote 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 10:33:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ES5310064 - Avenc de Son Pou.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2018 at 07:57:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tallinn.- 26 Pikk House of the Brotherhood of Black Heads (1).JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 21:04:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Body of a Hansson 31 sailboat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 19:32:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Sailboats
  •   Info Not the way you usually depict sailboats. I like how it fills the frame, almost suspended in the blue by ropes and lines, and you can go explore all the details of the body. All by me, -- Cart (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Typical "QI not FP"-case in my eyes. I see nothing special here. Sorry. --Code (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Oenothera stricta (d.j.b.) 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 18:32:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Christ Church Cathedral, DublinEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 11:50:26 (UTC)

  • Yes it is. You can see that in the file name when you click on 'edit'. You will see Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin as the nomination name. Another tipoff that it's a set nom, is that the nom page name in the FPC list hasn't got a "File:" or "Image:" in the name. If you just open a set nom in 'edit' and cancel, you will come to the nomination page. --Cart (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question What is the reason why the walls don't seem vertical in the picture on the right ? Under the arch, they are leaning towards outside, as if the perspective correction had gone too far -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The reason is simple: they are indeed leaning outwards due to the static pressure of the arches. The hanging candelabras however are perfectly vertical. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Llez (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Celebrating a new America -lovewins 58242 (18588276403).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2018 at 02:21:01 (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 low image quality. King of ♠ 03:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC) 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.

File:Glaciar Margerie, Parque Nacional Bahía del Glaciar, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-19, DD 33.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 18:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Corvus splendens insolens @ Kuala Lumpur (2) alternate crop.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 12:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2014-Cambodge Spean preah Toeûs (3).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 09:54:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Close-up photograph of an Iguana iguana.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2018 at 06:04:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:The lighthouse on the promontory of Nyholmen by Bodø harbor.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 17:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by Frankemann - uploaded by Frankemann - nominated by Frankemann -- Frankemann (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Frankemann (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Definitely a QI, and well-done, but sandwiching the putative subject between two layers of land does not help focus on it. Basically, there's too much going on in this image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Horizon is bright, while the main parts are quiet dark and it does not draw my attention --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed and Composition --The Photographer 23:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support, for all the reasons others oppose, I like the brightness that gives me a melancholic feel. However, a lower angle and a composition with a larger lighthouse would be better. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 07:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - The view and the light amid the darkness strike me, so I think that's sufficient for me to vote to support. The highlights are a little blown, but I believe this view actually looked as depicted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Chipmunk (71669).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 16:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose A bit small for the "new" FP standart not official, arbust distracting on foreground (note added) and composition problem (too hight angle shoot) --The Photographer 23:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'm surprised to hear the opinion that a ~5 megapixel image of a small subject is too small. Nothing I can do about that (or the angle) now I suppose. I'd be happy to try cropping a bit if that's what this discussion yields, though. Maybe a bit less than the note says (such that the grass still kind of frames the subject, to the left/right and behind). Curious to get other thoughts. — Rhododendrites talk |  23:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Comparing your picture with images in the same FP subject, the smaller photos are at least 10 years older than this, of all the things that I told you that It's the only thing measurable, the rest is only a personal opinion humbly --The Photographer 23:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I also find the size a bit small (or just limit), especially considering the composition could be cut at the bottom and on the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support small but convincingly nice --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mostly per The Photographer. The small size (and small subject within the frame) isn't an absolute fail for wildlife, but mainly that it gets no points for detail, resolution, when we're trying to work out what is exceptional here. If this was some rare species and the lens was already 400mm then I'd be more forgiving, but this is in a city garden. I don't think subject size is really a factor, just the appropriate choice of lens. Subject distance is generally more of a limitation, and our best wildlife photography often shows a good deal of effort to get close to the subject (and hours and hours of missed chances). The green shoots are also a bit distracting. And agree that getting down at the same height as the subject is often superior. -- Colin (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - Very good photo and worth nominating, but I ultimately oppose per others, mainly because of the size, but also for the other reasons cited. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Tree swallow at Stroud Preserve.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 09:16:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Peulle, GerifalteDelSabana, Daniel Case: No, it's not an artificial background, just grass that's way out of focus because of the 600mm focal length. Here is the uncropped version which shows some of the variation in background, and here are some other unprocessed shots from the same day with similar backgrounds. --Iiii I I I (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  Support--Peulle (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Extremely regretful oppose because of that background. Gerifalte Del Sabana 14:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Gladly supported Well that's some noisy grass, but I really like the bird. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 23:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral pending resolution of questions about background. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  Weak support I figured it was blurred grass. But I wonder if maybe you cropped in a bit too much. But ... it's your image and your call. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much noise and satured colors. --The Photographer 23:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per The Photographer, plus the unattractive light makes it look almost 2-dimensional compared to this. --Cart (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per The Photographer and Cart. Quality is too low for FP -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Coleus (71543).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2018 at 03:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Butorides striata @ KL, Malaysia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 12:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Cayambe: Check out the previous revision; I cropped some of the left side out because of a rock outcropping, heh. Would you prefer it? ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 09:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, nice contrast between the subject and the background. I'd also prefer a tiny bit of space on the left but without stones :) Still great though, --Podzemnik (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would likely support either way, but I, too, wished there was a little more on the side. I see what you mean regarding the rocks, though. I went ahead and tried to remove them and uploaded another version here. I then reverted to your most recent edit. I should say that I did so fairly quickly and it's not perfect -- it's mainly to show that it's possible -- and if you like the change you may want to make it on your end with the raw file (it's just Lightroom's spot removal tool). This will likely pass without it, though. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  19:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit Underexposed and please, try the next time a low angle shoot showing more contrasted background --The Photographer 23:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, Sir Photographer! I was on top of the small waterfall where it was, so I couldn't get much lower, but I'll try next time. :) ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 00:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
you are welcome lord from The Sabana --Photographer 22:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Crno jezero.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 10:29:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Code:Unfortunately, I guess the uploader is no longer active here; I just stumbled upon the pic and noticed it fulfils the technical requirements for nomination, so I thought it was worth trying (in my opinion the photo really deserves it). --GeXeS (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too small. It looks like the kind of shot that could have been promoted in 2012 but then delisted in 2018 since standards have moved along and the photo is no longer good enough.--Peulle (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Code and Peulle -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose beautiful but too small, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support, I still think that it gets my wow and passes the minimum requirements, but a weak because per others, the resolution is not too good. Still an amazing photo overall though. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 06:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose; very very good picture but downsized. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 06:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:St Patrick's Cathedral Choir, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 09:27:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Attacus taprobanis-Kadavoor-2018-07-13-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 07:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:La Graciosa - Monaña Clara - Alegranza.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2018 at 07:14:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:North view in Galleria Vittorio Emanuele II from rotunda.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 20:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Peulle: I checked again and it's not. What may be giving you that impression is that I wasn't exactly on the center axis as I took the photo. Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
That might be it, yes. I'm checking the horizontals and that's when I see that things on the left aren't lining up with the right. I don't see any problems with the verticals, though.--Peulle (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful photo, especially the glass roof. Unfortunately three people in the front are disturbing the composition too much (especially the boy in the left corner) --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Michielverbeek: Usually I roll my eyes at "Ewww! People" opposes to things like this but I admit with this one you may have a point. I will see if Peulle's right about the tilt (I don't think so, but you never know) and probably crop the people mostly out so all you see is tops of heads. Would that work better? Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC) I don't think the people problem is repairable. I guess it would have been better if you would take this photo some seconds before or after --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - A mall with people. It's fine, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The composition brings to mind The School of Athens. --Cart (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There are many similar pictures from the gallery. I don't think this is outstanding.--Ermell (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cut feet and distracting head seen from behind in the foreground. Also I agree with Peulle there's a small tilt (fixable) visible on the left side with this part of the building being not perfectly vertical. The roof is wonderful, but unfortunately we can't cut the image over the crowd, so we really have to compose with these people walking. In this kind of situation, I usually use a tripod and wait quite long, until an interesting configuration occurs, neutral or special (extra value if someone creates something). But that's not easy, and subject to luck. Here I'm bothered by the crowded bottom. Not enough free space on the floor visually to breath and feel an elegant composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have fixed the tilt (I think). Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Head mutilation in people is too distracting --The Photographer 23:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Vat Pa Phai temple with a Buddhist monk, orange marigold, clouds and blue sky, in Luang Prabang.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 11:58:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Laos

File:Glaciar Davidson, Haines, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-18, DD 55.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 08:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Smial -- Smial (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this image because of the very special lighting. -- Smial (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree, a nice one! :) Thank you Smial for the nom! --Poco2 11:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support For once, an image with grey sky and dirty subject adds to the value.--Peulle (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 13:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree, great lighting. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Would be great if brightened 2/3 stop or so but right now it's too dark for me. -- King of ♠ 01:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    KoH I just checked it and 2/3 stop would be definitely too much, the atmosphere of the images would be essentially different. If Smial wants I can offer a alternative version. Poco2 07:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
      Comment Simple brightening wouldn't work. Perhaps slight S-curving? I don't think it's really necessary, but I've tried a minor rework. --Smial (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree then. In my opinion scenes sometimes do need to be brightened from what the eye sees; for example, I've found that the optimal time to photograph during the blue hour comes 5-10 minutes after the optimal time for viewing the scene with the naked eye, using a significantly longer exposure of course. -- King of ♠ 03:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good as it is--Ermell (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support We not should change the natural light of this scene --The Photographer 23:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Red Army monument in Mikolin (Nikoline) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 07:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very well-taken photo, but partially obscured by shrubbery, not an outstanding composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ... and for the reasons people oppose! It speaks of the times... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Not much obscured to me. So foliage around is quite natural. Jee 03:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weaky supporty per Tomas, but a closer angle wouold be much better :) ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 07:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Per Jkadavoor, although I'd prefer a closer angle --Llez (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Silesia Star, Katowice (Kattowitz).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2018 at 07:12:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Your opinion is noted, but I asked you why it's so relatively small. So why is that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Because this size is ok for me --Pudelek (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • That's just as unresponsive as "Because I said so". I will give this nomination moderate   Support, but I really don't appreciate your non-answers and don't think they will help you convince anyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a pretty good image, but the combination of the bridge and building doesn't quite work for me. If the bridge had been the subject I might have been convinced with that nice yellow steel construction on the left, but right now the buildings in the background are disturbing that impression. So the buildings and the bridge are disturbing each other. Perhaps a different angle might have worked.--Peulle (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support eye-catching Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in the evening.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 18:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Silent dialogue.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 11:15:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Cervidae (Deers)
  •   Info Deer (Cervus laphus L.) in Mizhrichynskyi Regional Landscape Park, the biggest regional landscape park in Ukraine. The large wild area provides a habitat to many animals. Created by Wildlife Ukraine - uploaded by Wildlife Ukraine - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry it doesn't compare well with our existing FP's of deer (see updated FP category above), wrt composition, exposure or sharpness. The filename and categories could do with some changes. -- Colin (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin; it looks great as a thumbnail but when looking at it, the quality and crispness just isn't there. As far as the categories go, this is not an elk, it's a deer, so that needs tidying up.--Peulle (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The head and the body of the deer are not sharp. I think f/4 at 420mm here is not enough, and also 1/15s too long to avoid motion blur. Concerning the light, there are blown highlights. The composition may be interesting but the quality is not there -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I didn't even get to looking at the deer; the center of the picture looks like someone dropped an ice cube on it an hour before ... I mean, even Monet would have included more detail. The unsharp area is distracting even at thumbnail; at full size it is grotesque. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, especially Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --Llez (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cypripedium acaule - Henvey Inlet3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 04:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Orchidaceae
  •   Info - all by -- СССР (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The subject is sharp, but the composition much less interesting than the previous one. The light has nothing special and the background is distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Basile. The other photo had graceful curves (though one can see why it is also called the scrotum flower) and this one a worse angle and distracting background. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Cool: Looks like a nose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

File :Pseudosphinx tetrio (Sphingidae).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2018 at 02:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • A further oppose based on what everyone has added. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:42, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think, this is not the original background. The motif was cut out (visible at the borders) and placed on an even blue background. --Llez (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. -- Colin (talk) 07:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--西安兵马俑 (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Llez, and even if it had the original background I find the composition awkward and cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes, Llez is right. This is not the original background. We can see that using a software indicating the hexadecimal code of the color at various points. In this case, the color is always #7085C8. Whereas in a real blue sky (like this one for example), visually evenly spread, the subtle color and its associated hexadecimal code will always vary -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Poppies bouquet 2017 G1.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 21:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info For the closing of this nom, I've commented out the music file added by Daniel. The bot read it as an "Alt" photo file since they display the same way in the coding. I've amended the closing with an "alt" that MZaplotnik had to do because of this. --Cart (talk) 07:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • alternative parameter needed, because ‎FPCBot has a trouble again -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Hopefully our double fixes will make it work now. --Cart (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 21:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects
The chosen alternative is: File:Poppies bouquet 2017 G1.jpg

File:Cochem, Cond, Moselufer -- 2018 -- 0118.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 18:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
  •   Info created by and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Backlit dandelions are always irresistible, but in this case it competes too much with the identifiable background. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I also would try shooting this more wide open. Really try to soften that background. At 2.8 or faster I doubt you could tell that was a building. You don't need a large DoF with these. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the choice of DoF is a feature here. I very much like this contre-jour photograph. --Code (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Code. Cool photo, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, no reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Münster, Graffiti im Hafen -- 2015 -- 5852.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 18:02:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pelicans Kerkini 20111227 IMG 5165.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 17:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Great composition, great light, I really like the pose of the pelican in focus. I now it is a bit soft but I hope the rest can mitigate this.

  •   Info created by RoubinakiM - uploaded by RoubinakiM - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- C messier (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose I very much like it but ... it suffers in sharpness from being so small. Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose Per Daniel. Great thumbnail, nice light and pattern, but not excellent quality at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel, and as a bird photographer myself, a shot from a lower angle would be much better, if permitted. :) -- Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really good composition, IMO. I really like the rhythm, the way my eyes move around the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Over-denoise filter applied, the animals pen look like a smooth plastic surface --The Photographer 23:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Cityscape of Blois 07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jul 2018 at 16:03:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tournasol7 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A QI for sure but it just doesn't stand out enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I personally like it, but it seems a bit tilted visually, and is slightly overexposed at the lamps in the background, but it still looks good so... ;) I'd love it if the tilt could be fixed. -- Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. At 10 MP the level of detail isn't quite there, and some noise and overexposure as well. But it's a great scene. -- King of ♠ 01:28, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Sunrise in Kristianopel at Baltic sea 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jul 2018 at 16:17:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by GPSLeo - uploaded by GPSLeo - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment As seen at QIC. It looks very pleasant to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much has been cropped away for me to support this one. I'd rather it had been composed better from the start.--Peulle (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow and main part is too dark for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very pleasing light and wonderful mood. I'd love to support it but please undo the crop and clone out the blurry birds above the building on the left. --Code (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Code - very restful, pleasant light, good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment As suggested I undid the crop and removed the birds.(Cropped Version us uploaded separately) --GPSLeo (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Glaciar Hubbard, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-20, DD 16-21 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Jul 2018 at 21:25:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Hubbard Glacier, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poco2 21:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW! -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 00:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad, but still not very impressive. Maybe other weather condition would have worked. And rather soft too --A.Savin 01:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. --Karelj (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Impressive to me! Yes, it's soft (and noisy) at humongous full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support An impressive photo! --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Only today I'm able to review this work. Large files are a pain for my computer. Jee 04:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Timetable (day 5 after nomination)Edit

Sat 14 Jul → Thu 19 Jul
Sun 15 Jul → Fri 20 Jul
Mon 16 Jul → Sat 21 Jul
Tue 17 Jul → Sun 22 Jul
Wed 18 Jul → Mon 23 Jul
Thu 19 Jul → Tue 24 Jul

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

Tue 10 Jul → Thu 19 Jul
Wed 11 Jul → Fri 20 Jul
Thu 12 Jul → Sat 21 Jul
Fri 13 Jul → Sun 22 Jul
Sat 14 Jul → Mon 23 Jul
Sun 15 Jul → Tue 24 Jul
Mon 16 Jul → Wed 25 Jul
Tue 17 Jul → Thu 26 Jul
Wed 18 Jul → Fri 27 Jul
Thu 19 Jul → Sat 28 Jul

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]] ===
    === [[: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/July 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/July 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:
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    === [[: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/July 2018), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.