Commons:Kandidatët për fotografi të shkëlqyeshme

Në gjuhë tjera : Alemannisch | asturianu | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | فارسی | español | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | молдовеняскэ | norsk bokmål | português | polski | română | русский | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Në këtë faqe gjeni fotografit të cilat përdoruesit e projektit i vlerësojnë si të shkëlqyeshme dhe për këtë arsye i kanë propozuar që ato të futen në Galerinë Fotografi të Shkëlqyeshme.


Vini Re!: Votimi nuk është për Figurën e ditës!


Fotografit e propozuaraEdit

Nëse ke hasur në jë fotografi që ty të pëlqen përdore këtë stampë për ta regjistruar atë! Për një gjë të tillë nuk nevojitet të kesh konto në Commons, propozimet nga kalimtarët janë të mirëseardhura.

Në rast suksesi, sigurohu që ajo fotografi ka edhe një përshkrim të shkëlqyeshëm dhe disponon Licencë


Rregullat e votimit:

- Kohë zgjatja e votimit është 9 ditë. Ditën e 10 vendoset për rezultatin
- Nëse një fotografi nuk merr asnjë votë "PRO" brenda 5 ditëve mund të tërhiqet brenda afatit 
- Propozimet nga Adresat IP janë të mirëseardhura
- Diskutimet dhe vërejtjet nga Adresat IP janë të mirëseardhura
- Votat e Adresat IP nuk numërohen
- Propozimi nuk numërohet si votë por propozuesi ka drejtë votimi
- Propozuesi mund të tërheq nga votimi fotografin e propozuar nga ai

Fotografia e propozuar mund të futet në Galerinë Fotografi të Shkëlqyeshme nëse plotëson këto kushte:

- Licencë të pa diskutueshme 
- Së paku 5 vota "PËR" ("Support") 
- Proporcioni PËR/KUNDËR i votave duhet të jetë së paku 2/1 ( së paku 67% apo 2/3 e votuesve të jen PËR)


Votimi bëhet me "{{Pro}}" ose "{{Kontra}}", abstenimi "{{Neutral}}". Këtu vendosë një kandidatë

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Villeneuve d'Ascq WLM2016 Église Saint-Pierre de Flers-Bourg (6).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 14:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment Thank you for your advice, it'is difficult to repar. The picture is taken against the light, it is not easy to get a real shadow level. --Pierre André (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the earlier version you uploaded was fine - certainly on my screen. Samsara (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, it would be too dark if you didn't raise the shadows this much. Unfortunately, you can't fix lighting in post. -- King of ♠ 18:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Vinylite and corrosion applied in a horse hoof.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info Horse hoof after technique of vinylite and corrosion, which allows for the visualization of the vascular architecture of the specimen, on display at the Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP. Created by Museum of Veterinary Anatomy FMVZ USP / Wagner Souza e Silva - uploaded by Joalpe - nominated by Joalpe -- Joalpe (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Joalpe (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support HEV. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral DoF problem --The Photographer 19:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Rhythm of the mountains.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 12:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • (Edit conflict)I wouldn't go as far as to say that the colors are unnatural (the sky is perfectly fine), I've seen some spectacular mountain ranges, but some noice reduction would nevertheless be much appreciated. It looks like the opening scene of The Last of the Mohicans. :) --cart-Talk 12:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  Done Stitching errors have been corrected. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Поглед на Лесновскиот манастир.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 07:36:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by Petrovskyz - uploaded by Petrovskyz - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much of the building obscured. Don't see what elevates this above a tourist snap. -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I also don't like the crop in the lower left corner, but my overall feeling is that this is a technically fine picture that isn't striking. I wonder what a dead-on photo of the monastery from the other side would look like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice photo but not an interesting composition. And the left bottom corner is not well done. However photo is good enough for a Q1, but not for FP. --Michielverbeek (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Ceriagrion cerinorubellum-Kadavoor-2016-11-28-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2016 at 04:30:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info Ceriagrion cerinorubellum with prey. C/U/N: Jkadavoor -- Jee 04:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Usually the food of these damselflies are smaller moths, mosquitoes and other small insects. Here it is able to catch a somewhat bigger moth using its basket legs. But due to the excessive weight, it failed to manage a typical landing; but somehow managed a perch on a leaf and balanced with the tail end of its abdomen. I can see the prey making every effort to escape. When the head of the prey is finished, it moved to a comfortable perch. The white flakes we see in the air, body of the damselfly and leaf are loosen wing-scales of the moth. Jee 04:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good capture (you and the damselfly). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 09:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Technically not so good, but brilliant capture. Charles (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I already noticed this image, and I wondered if this is the same individual who, frightened by you, moved with his prey. I wonder if odonates carries heavy and far... Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Pattern lamps 2016-1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 23:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info May there be light in the dark winter nights! And long live minimalism! Composition with a street lamp in Porto Covo, Portugal. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question Looks really cool. Just so I understand, you say "Composition with a street lamp" so this is one lamp cloned three times and not one photo of three lamps side by side, is that right? --cart-Talk 23:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Thank you for a prompt and clear answer. Sorry, the pic is very cool and it is a great minimalistic photo of a lamp you have cloned, but this is similar to previous discussions about 'mirrored' images. I know that people have different views on this, but I don't think such photos should be in FP since they don't follow the guidelines for Digital manipulations of FPCs. That guideline also states that any such work should be clearly stated in the file's description so please add that. --cart-Talk 00:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think this level of manipulation is appropriate for an FP. -- King of ♠ 01:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

*  Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC) changing my vote to   Neutral after considering Colin's objection. While I can't support this nomination as such, I'm certainly not opposed to more creative approaches to imaging here on FPC --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I actually agree with you about letting in more creative approches, but as the guidelines are now, this falls into a grey area. cart-Talk 13:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't undestand the objections of W.carter, King of Hearts and Martin. The photo is described as a "montage", which is an image created by combining serveral images. It does appear to be the same lamp 3x rather than 3 different lamps brought together at composition time. Perhaps the description text can be improved, but that's hardly a reason to oppose. We have similarly combined images at FP. I'd probably find the image more interesting with three different lamps, perhaps at slightly different angles. And a single lamp is probably too minimal to be interesting. But I think this should be judged on its success as a image rather than how it is described. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There was extensive discussion the last time a digital manipulation was nominated, with people having strong oppinions pro and con, as seems to be the case here too. Also, the example you mention is more like what we now refer to as a "set". cart-Talk 09:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
W.carter I think that example is more problematic as the image might appear to be Liège-Guillemins Station interior but can't exist and does mislead the viewer. Actually my photo deliberately wasn't a set, but a triptych. I wanted it to be viewed as an arrangement of three images. I am also reminded of File:Red LEDs.jpg, which is an actual row of LEDs, and File:Bouncing ball strobe edit.jpg. Two POTY images File:Glühwendel brennt durch.jpg and File:Glühlampe explodiert.jpg have the bulb screw Photoshopped in. Anyway, I just don't think we should rule out "montage" as a valid presentation form at Commons FP. What is regarded as FP (or even, in scope for Commons) is highly variable. -- Colin (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Colin, I agree that the triptych concept as such (or versions of it) definitely has a place in FP as in the examples you have given, but all those are of different versions/angles/aspects of something, this is the exact same photo repeated three times, therefore it is more akin to the mirroring images where the same photo is also repeated two times albeit one mirrored. (Sidebar: And if we're going for the repetition theme, the are more interesting ways of doing that). cart-Talk 11:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm fully aware that this is a risky nomination. Not because the image is manipulated or the same object is repeated three times but owing to its artistic, rather than illustrative, nature. As a matter of fact I'm not interested in documenting what a street lamp looks like but in using its image to make an abstract composition. Thus the proper criteria to evaluate this nomination should be aesthetical, not encyclopedic. As long as the revewers agree that Common is the right place to host this kind of pictures and FPC is the right place to assess them, of course! Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:FS E 444R Cervo 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 23:15:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •   Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Certainly one of the best views of the now replaced section of the Genoa-Ventimiglia railway can be found at Cervo, Italy.
  •   Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Oh! It's a picture of a railway. I thought it was a photo of a town with a beach... Just kidding, great as usual. :) --cart-Talk 23:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Wonderful! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Claus 03:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent light and composition. And the first picture I ever added to Category:Taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark IV. --Code (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderful indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice perspective.--Mile (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support All round excellence. Charles (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support For to be a bit picky, the sky is'nt perfect (little pixelation), and there are a very few sharpening artefacts (I talk about pixel level), I know I am exaggerating, very good image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment The composition is not optimal, it needs a crop below (too much useless water). IMO. --Jebulon (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Panorama of lake Baikal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 23:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panorama of lake Baikal. The first ice on the lake. Here is the deepest part of the lake, more then 1600 meters. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi Sergey, and welcome to this very new user plunging right in at the hardest section here. :) This is a great photo, but you really need to clean up the categories for it. On your talk page there is a very useful message with some tips about things here. I suggest you take a look at Commons:Categories for a bit of guidance. --cart-Talk 23:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I've trimmed the categories and adjusted the English description. I need to get to Category:Lake Baikal and do some refining/creating. Lake Baikal in different seasons for instance. It's a bit of a mess, and I transferred 500 or more of the images from Flickr...   lNeverCry 23:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! You are a "workaholic" here and we really appreciate you for it.   --cart-Talk 00:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very impressive at full size! One question, though: What is the blue and greenish yellow diagonal line in the near right corner of the lake? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: FYI - The uploader looks to be en-1/2, so he may have difficulty responding or may use translation software. lNeverCry 01:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: Thank you! It's the lens flare from the Sun. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought it would be something like that. Could you possibly clean that up? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you, and I heartily   Support this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Paris, mairie du 10e arrdt, hall 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 19:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created and uploaded by Coyau - nominated by -- Benh (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info To be viewed with the viewer before assessment.
  •   Support I find it Very impressive. -- Benh (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Hugely detailed. There some minor stitching errors and discontinuity in the central gold light fitting with some lens flare on half of it. But there is nothing can be done about that now, sadly. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose size --Mile (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Mile means file size, for those who are puzzled by the vote. - Benh (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Mile, this isn't a problem for the panorama viewer so I don't see why it should be a problem for Commons FP. There are gigapixel panoramas on the internet that offer an amazing chance to explore in all three dimensions, so there are possibilities for even larger files than this that would be highly educational. -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - My experience, too - no difficulty at all in opening it in the 3D pano viewer, and it's certainly of FP quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Stitching error (see note). -- King of ♠ 01:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very well done and interesting subject. Honestly I can't believe that someone really opposes because of the file being too large. Mile, you must be kidding (and this is really a bad joke). Especially such 360° panoramas should be as large as possible in order to offer the possibility of zooming into the details. We should strongly encourage that. If you've for some strange reasons problems with files being too large then please, at least abstain from voting instead of opposing. --Code (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Code, I have seen someone oppose at FP because a file was too free (CC0). So anything is possible, not just on April 1st. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info I dont see any reason for being at 170+ MB, i could see this "stitched with mistakes" in much lower MPx and wouldnt miss any value. Picture is medicore by quality, and i saw at lest 3 mistake, not mentionig flare. Code did you see anything !? --Mile (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info 2 : Benh did you saw mistakes while uploading. Person did pass away as i see on his homepage. Rest in peace. But do we get any "bonus" with our pictures by that ?! Will our photography be more feautered ? Would you vote same if i was the author ? Re-think... --Mile (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't know. Mile, you support a 6MP image and yet complain about minor stitching issues only visible at 100% on a 450 MP image. Commons is a media repository and any sized image can be generated automatically in software when the image is rendered by the server or on your screen. The issue of the author's death is not that we should be more generous, but that there is no prospect to fix the image. Many of the nit-picking complaints at FP are made with the assumption that an active Commons user should be able to fix them and submit a new version. That isn't possible, so we just have to judge it for its pro and con as is. And the pro more than outweigh the con. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I was looking on 1/3 of resolution - 5 MPx wide. I found some mistakes in a minute and some are to large for FP. Looking at 100% i would probably find more of them. --Mile (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I cannot judge this image as the largest size I can view is 1280 x 640. Charles (talk) 09:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The 3-D panorama viewer isn't working for you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • No, just get some fixed 360 panorama. Charles (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Charlesjsharp: Then you should use the viewer. The link has been mentioned twice, but here again : Link. If for some reason it doesn't work with you, then maybe it's better you remove your vote (which doesn't have much sense as it is). - Benh (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  Support Featurable. Thanks Benh. in memoriam Coyau, who passed away one week ago...--Jebulon (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Casa histórica de Boroujerdi, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 34-36 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 19:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info View of the rich ceiling of the interior courtyard of the Borujerdi House, a historic house located in Kashan, Iran. The house dates from 1857 and was constructed by architect Ustad Ali Maryam for a wealthy merchant as proof of love to his wife. All by me, Poco2 19:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing subject and well captured. -- Colin (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 23:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't known Poco2 is a human or a spider, but his house is amazing.--Claus 03:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Zon komt op boven een winters landschap. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 18:16:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Sun rises over a wintry landscape. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. All by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A scene like this is quite common around the world, so it's just not special enough for me. No clouds, no especially amazing composition. -- King of ♠ 01:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent colours, quality and composition. Much better than an average photo of a sunrise. --Code (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Code --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Request A beautiful photo, but please remove the small contrails above the left tree, --Michielverbeek (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done. spot removed. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but per KoH.--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 16:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Nadar and/or workshop, the rest by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Robert Peary (1856 - 1920), US Navy rear admiral, engineer and North Pole explorer. Restored by me.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine restauration and what a mustache! Pugilist (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Someone else might have been more aggressive in restoring, but I appreciate your conservatism, and considering how old the photo is, it's of good quality - and certainly of a historically important person. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Request the left side of the forehead is too bright for me. Can you perhaps correct it? Otherwise a nice work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Wavy fence and a wall BW version.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 14:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Created, uploaded and nominated by cart - Ideas, input and suggestions by Team FPC, -- cart-Talk 14:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 14:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per remarks in the thread on a variation on this theme. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I liked the color version too but this does bring out the lines better. Daniel Case (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Saint-Pétersbourg.- palais de Pavlovsk.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 11:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done change Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals.- Thanks.--Pierre André (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  Thank you It's a better cat. --Pierre André (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A bit too much distance between subject and viewer, and the tree at right accentuates that separation. lNeverCry 00:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per INC, and being in shadow doesn't help. -- King of ♠ 01:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just too much going on for this to work. Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Mallnitz Stappitzer See Wasseroberfläche 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 09:57:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Reflections>
  •   Info Light reflections on the water surface of Lake Stappitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost like mine, but I guess we can have two. :) --cart-Talk 10:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - It's a blur at full size, but it sure is captivating at full-page size, and for this kind of photo, that's all that matters to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I was to support, but at full size, I disagree with Ikan Kekek, as almost all the half upper part is unsharp and it is too much. DoF issue IMO. Very nice nevertheless, and the kind of ideas I like. A pity. Next time maybe ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The upper part could be sharper, but all in all I support. Pugilist (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful, but unsharpness per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jebulon, sorry! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:South Loop Chicago June 2015 001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2016 at 06:31:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 06:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 06:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, Sir! Good photo of contemporary architecture in context. The curved part of the building on the left reminds me of one of the better new buildings in Manhattan's Battery. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Do we need foreground? Charles (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice pic, but I find that my eyes get stuck on that big shadow and lines at the bottom of the pic, a crop might be in order. See note. --cart-Talk 12:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek, Charlesjsharp, W.carter: I have cropped the bottom and uploaded it directly over the original. If anyone prefers the original then I'll revert and create an alt. -- King of ♠ 01:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Cart's crop made the difference. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - No problem, I still support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Much better, but I'd do more, cropping to leave the board park in... Charles (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks fine now, thanks! :) --cart-Talk 10:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Брегалница кај Равна Река 2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 21:59:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 18:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Fort de la Justice (by) (14).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 21:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support I think this photo of a wrecked fortification of the Franco-Prussian War is poetic and remarkable, as the viewer really feels that they are inside of that desolate space when viewing. It was previously nominated by ComputerHotline on 3 March 2010 and got no votes or comments whatsoever, which I find extremely strange. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Please help. I'm not sure what I did wrong in editing this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Nevermind - seems to be OK now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems that you have encountered a problem with the template's substitution, because the picture was unsuccessfully nominated for FP in 2010 (see this). I manually edited the page to put the nomination in order but we still need clarification if a single picture can be nominated again after a failed attempt.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Ikan It isn't fixed. This page needs reverted back to 2010 and a new nomination with /2 on the end created. -- Colin (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Do I need to do anything other than add /2 to the title? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It didn't work to just put /2 at the end of the title. Please advise in more detail. Thanks a lot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
To be precise, I got an edit conflict with the old nomination I had just reverted to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support My support worked...I hope... lNeverCry 01:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is certainly a valuable image of important historical place but it doesn't work to me for an FA, because 1) there is obvious perspective distortion, 2) the composition is not the most interesting of the place (for example, the composition of this, this and this is more featurable) 2) there is an overexposed area on the right side caused by the sunlight reflection, and 3) the litter, especially the plastic bottle, on the ground is just too distracting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Your arguments are well-stated, and I certainly understand them, but I disagree with all of them, probably even the overexposure point. Maybe just a bit, but in the context of the whole, not only do I find it perfectly acceptable, but I hardly notice it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not feeling wowed by this. -- Colin (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Jean Michel Jarre B10-2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 21:16:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by A.Savin - uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info I think A.Savin has managed to get a very expressive portrait of Jean-Michel Jarre a notable composer and electronic musician under difficult conditions at a press conference. I may be biased - the first record I ever bought was Oxygène. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like it too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Great portrait, and of course I'm biased!!   I still have the Les Concerts en Chine CD in the car on long drives. --cart-Talk 22:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent portrait. I love to see unposed portraits with emotion and personality like this. lNeverCry 22:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks Slaunger! I would like to add that previously WP articles used snapshots of Jarre which didn't justice to him at all, e.g. this one. So this photo is very important to me, for this reason and also because I'm also electronic music fan. --A.Savin 22:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. -- Spurzem (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support excellent. Charles (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 08:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Too much space above, i would crop. --Mile ( talk) 09:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --smial 12:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Ah, ze French ... personne d'autre fait «élégamment désordonné» tout comme eux. Pas étonnant qu'ils aiment Mickey Rourke tellement! (If any native francophone can think of a better way of rendering "stylishly disheveled" than what Google came up with for me, please let me know ... I rather like it). I like the way he looks like he just woke up before the press conference and will therefore be, well, more real. I like the way his off-kilter look, eyes one way and face another while neither looks directly at the viewer, accentuates the unkempt hair, the unzipped jacket that makes me think "Members Only!" (but it's probably so much better than that), perhaps slouching slightly in his chair, as if he is the one dignifying the press with his presence. Daniel Case (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:KotaKinabalu Sabah CityMosque-00.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 13:16:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In what state is that, could be part of description. --Mile (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment ccw tilt. Towers and their reflectons must be on the same vertical line. --Ivar (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree with Iifar. Very much want to support but would like this fixed. It isn't a simple global tilt, with the left more out than the right. Have you applied all the lens correction profile you can? The EXIF suggests you may have tried using Lightroom's Upright correction mode, which in my experience isn't always precise enough. Have you tried using the guided mode and drawing vertical lines from the top of all the spikes to their reflection. -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  Comment I applied perspective correction and removed a slight barrel distortion. For the top of the cupola, please note, that the spike is askew. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very nice picture, but the quality suffers from an excessive noise suppression. I'm used to see much higher level by Cccefalon. Any way to have it properly redeveloped? --A.Savin 22:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  Comment Thanks for your comment. However, I did not apply more noise reduction than I do usually. The effect might be due to the long exposure time and the application of HDR technique. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Nice blue minute - I mean "hour" - photo. :-) (Sunsets in Malaysia are really quick, 20 minutes from start to total darkness, from what I remember). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
According to's page for Kuala Lumpur (couldn't find one for Sabah), sunset on the date the photo was taken was at 7:02 local (I assume the camera clock was perhaps an hour ahead, or the sky was heavily clouded. Or both), followed by 22 minutes of "Oh? The day's over?" civil twilight, then 26 minutes of "Now this is blue hour!" nautical twilight, and finally 26 minutes of "Now where did I put the tripod?" astronomical twilight. This compares to a 4:29 p.m. local sunset in New York on the same date, with the c/n/a twilights coming in at 30, 30 and 34 minutes respectively.

So, yes, sunset in Malaysia during the Northern Hemisphere winter is a little shorter than at the lower end of the upper temperate latitudes. But not by much. Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you that my father loved to paint sunsets, and in Terengganu, he didn't even have enough time to sketch a sunset, so subjectively, it's a _much_ quicker sunset! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 00:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Beautiful shot, though it could be sharper. -- King of ♠ 02:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine with me after correction. --Ivar (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice reflection. -- Colin (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 13:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit oversharpened on the back minaret, perhaps, but overall well done. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:VKG Energia panoraam.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 13:08:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info created by Kaupo Kikkas - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Imho perspective distortion needs to be corrected. --Ivar (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Ivar, I'm not sure this is possible or desirable for an aerial photo. The purpose of "correcting" vertical perspective is to give the illusion that one is perpendicular to the verticals, which clearly is not reasonable from a position far above the chimneys. There is a slight tilt on the horizon. -- Colin (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Is the tilt on the horizon OK, or something that should be changed? I think this is a pretty interesting photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see any tilt there. Little bit of Earth's curvature, but that's it.
As there seems to be a general lack of industry-related imagery in Commons, I just went and asked for something. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm going to go ahead and support this nomination. As I stated above, this is interesting and good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support, amazing light. The trees are smeared but I personally recognize the challenge of getting distant trees sharp; some blown-out highlights on the smoke and building on the right but it's not too distracting for me. -- King of ♠ 02:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A fine job technically, but just way too much going on compositionally for it to be FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Small heath (Coenonympha pamphilus) P.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 12:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Rosie wait.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 12:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There are plenty of FPs that are not used in articles. One of the guidelines (above) says: 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. --cart-Talk 13:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW, Assuming the case must be encyclopedic to be here. There are articles that have not been written yet and what does this mean? Means that any image is potentially encyclopedic until proven otherwise and as the future is impossible to demonstrate, any image will be potentially encyclopedic forever. --The Photographer 13:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Perfectly stated, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good BW image. True, it doesnt have to be used, as en.Wiki do. Must be used they ask, i respond: should we wait if it get some FP star and then replace older one !? Maybe more logical. About shot, i wish it was focused on left eye, i see is more nearby. --Mile (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Color banding, notes added. --Ivar (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  Done --The Photographer 15:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nope, it's still there. --Ivar (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose because of bad banding at full size. But as for Charles' question: Usage in articles may be relevant to VIC, but I think it's irrelevant to FPC. Here, my understanding (and someone should correct me if I'm missing something) is that we are supposed to judge based solely on our comprehensive evaluations of the photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful portrait but the posterization is just too obvious. -- King of ♠ 02:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per other supporters --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support The mood outweighs any technical flaws for me. And it may not be used now, but someday someone will create an article on "lingerie advertising" or something along those lines, and then this will be perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • There is already an article where this would be appropriate for about 50% of the audience... ;) cart-Talk 16:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Daniel Case. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 09:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Banding, indeed. A pity.--Jebulon (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice girl, but poor BW conversion: too strong banding. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 12:24:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ayuntamiento de Cádiz, España, 2015-12-08, DD 03-05 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 12:19:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Millars -- Millars (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Millars (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some perspective correction needed. Charles (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    Charles:   Done, I also increased the crop on the top Poco2 19:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks like the tower is falling backwards (probably not fixable, because shooting pont was too close). --Ivar (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    Ivar: Agree, that's though going to be hard to fix if it becomes a must Poco2 19:37, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Is this an optical illusion? I didn't notice it until I read Ivar's comment, and now I am having trouble unseeing it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective distortion gives that illusion and it's too much for me, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost forgot it, you have my support, Millars! :) Thank you for the nom!! Poco2 20:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Some perspective corrected thanks, but the tower is still falling over backwards! Charles (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice and festive. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:VKG Ojamaa kaevandus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 12:12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info created by Kaupo Kikkas - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Estonia is the biggest oil shale producer and user. VKG Ojamaa mine.
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 12:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good shot, i think you should write what bagger is that. --Mile (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done --cart-Talk 15:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Good job. I thought its Volvo, saw that strange word behind, but i wouldnt bet its a brand. --Mile (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • If you look below the window of the cabin it says "", that + the "ST7" also on the loader wasn't very hard to Google. ;) --cart-Talk 17:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I want a bit more high resolution for this kind of photo though. --Laitche (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 17:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good, interesting picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice detail, especially considering what had to be challenging lighting conditions. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:California sea lion in La Jolla (70568).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 11:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Otariidae (Eared seals)
  •   Info Created and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by W.carter.
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 11:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the gull facing away ruins it for me. Charles (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. The gull is definitely a negative but still this is a very majestic picture of the sea lion. -- King of ♠ 02:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the way the gull's pose echoes the seal's. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good moment; support per others. Sure, if the gull's head were straight, it would be even better, but in no way do I think its head being turned away kills the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a version with them facing the same way and one of them chatting, but the sea lion is not this magnificent in those. I could also add that this is down by the shore and not in a zoo. cart-Talk 10:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Your points are well-taken. It's not that the gull facing the viewer is the magic missing piece no matter what, it's just that in this particular picture, I think the gull looking straight ahead might make the picture even better. But this was the moment available to the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 18:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:NASA Completes Webb Telescope Center of Curvature Pre-test (30645694521).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 17:26:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Патот кон Манастир од Зовиќ.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 08:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Aix galericulata (male in all his glory).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 01:27:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Aix galericulata (Male), Richmond Park, UK - May 2013.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2016 at 01:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2015-07-27 20-51-30 Macroglossum-stellatarum.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 21:58:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info created and uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm having trouble with the idea of supporting a picture with this amount of unsharpness in the frame, although a survey of other pictures of this butterfly moth on Commons seems to show that it's very hard to get a clear picture of it. But I don't know if that's a sufficient reason to feature this photo. Could someone please help me understand why it would be appropriate for this to be more than a VI (and QI, since it is one)? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Since these little moths are reported to flap their wings about 70 - 80 times each second, I think this is about as sharp as the wings can get in flight. But looking at some other pics of this moth, there can be more interesting angles (that face!) and better backgrounds. cart-Talk 11:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Great capture, but I'm not sure it's FP. Charles (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Ikan and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong   Support. One of the best documentation of the typical behavior of Hummingbird hawk-moth which has the ability to fly from flowers to flowers for hours without taking any rest. It is very difficult to chase this subject. So we need wait near a flower with the camera ready expecting it will come. I remember a previous FP which barely passed; but performed very well in COM:POTY. Jee 03:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Egileta - Camino GR25 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 19:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, nothing special for FP for me. The colors are stolen too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support B&W, a great way to focus on lines, Ingmar Bergman would have loved this. --cart-Talk 20:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Per cart.   lNeverCry 22:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support This is photography! the old school way... Yann (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alchemist-hp. -- King of ♠ 04:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent B&W photograph. --Code (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I was not expecting to support this photo, when I saw the thumbnail. However, at full size, just look at the light and shade of the road. The other supporters are right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Alchemist.--Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per cart, it's nice for films but a bit weak impression for an individual photo, imho. --Laitche (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart; I like the lines and the monochrome makes you focus on them. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose schlechte SW-Umwandlung. --Ralf Roleček 08:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    Translation for Ralfs comment: "poor BW conversion". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
      Question OK, wie könnte ich die Umwandlung verbessern? How could I improve the conversion? --Basotxerri (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Berteroa incana - Syrphus ribesii - Tallinn.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 17:37:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info Hoverfly on the hoary alyssum, all by Ivar (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very beautiful at full-page size, and there are some remarkable colors on the insect at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice light nice colors and good using of focal plane. --Laitche (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Rawa (Iraq) 17.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 16:01:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Pelargonium zonale (Geraniaceae).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 15:19:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • That might be the next one, petal close-up, for now - flowers. One ? Sure next time i cut others around. --Mile (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 20:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I could imagine this on a textile print ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - I could criticize the composition and the crops, but as a closeup, this is spectacular. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice stacked macro photo and also colors are nice. --Laitche (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Dom (Magdeburg-Altstadt).Ansicht Neue Strombrücke.ajb.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 14:02:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Magdeburg Cathedral seen from Neue Strombrücke, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, all by me -- Ajepbah (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ajepbah (talk) 14:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment seems cramped. Charles (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The composition looks OK to me, but I'm not sure I like the light conditions. lNeverCry 22:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice detail, but per INC looks either hazed or as if someone overdid shadow suppression. Also, the bottom jumble offsets the effect of the building's simplicity of form. Daniel Case (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Abyaneh, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 13-15 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 09:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

ok! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support again a very nice "Poc" image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks very nice. Charles (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 22:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Joalpe (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite interesting and pretty. You really got around Iran, to the cities and the countryside, and were able to photograph seemingly at will. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I want a bit more of bottom part but nice. --Laitche (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Japanese tit in Suita, Osaka, November 2016 - 609.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 04:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mary Cassatt - The Child's Bath - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 03:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eastern great egret in flightEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2016 at 00:30:34 (UTC)

  •   Info c/u/n by Laitche (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great documentation, and yet it also reminds me of the great classic Japanese paintings of yesteryear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 09:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! --Yann (talk) 10:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Color me impressed! --cart-Talk 11:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support A marvelous set! Once again, this is what FP is about. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - great --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would prefer the timeline going in the same direction as the bird. Charles (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Charles: I can understand what you mean but for me "Time goes by left to the right." is natural. --Laitche (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I know, but it looks as if the bird is flying backwards. One solution would be to flip horizontal... Charles (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better thanks, 15:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)~~
  •   Support I remember a similar FP by JJH earlier. Jee 04:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Couple passes houseboat canals Amsterdam 2016-09-13.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 22:32:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Encouraged by the discussion at of this shared taxi FPC regarding looking around and documenting something which is common in one location, but maybe extraordinary in another, I nominate this picture showing a couple having what appears to be some leisure time cruising in their boat on the canals of Amsterdam while passing a houseboat. A quite typical scene in Amsterdam, but maybe not so many other places. Lets see what happens.... Not my usual type of nomination. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Faces arent so sharp, but i like the view. --Mile (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Focus is on the boat about 1/3 of the way in, not their faces. -- King of ♠ 09:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Mile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The background is too busy for a FP. Yann (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination After reading and also agreeing with the first comments, I believe this is just not FP level. Focal plane is not at correct distance, and background is probably too busy as Yann points out. Thanks for your reviews! -- Slaunger (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Post-withdraw question Slaunger, I find the houseboat very interesting, you don't happen to have a version with just that one? (i.e. the same photo but without the white boat) --cart-Talk 11:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi W.carter. No, I do not have photos of that particular houseboat as the main subject. but I do have quite a lot of photos of other houseboats in Amsterdam. I just uploaded this one yesterday, and I have more raws in my archives that I am currently looking through and postprocessing. Thanks for your interest. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Slaunger Ok, we'll see what else you upload. The interesting thing about this one is the water level shot of a houseboat that is more like a floating house and the light, the one you mentioned is top-down and not in a flattering light. --cart-Talk 12:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
        • W.carter Most of those I have with good light are top-down views. Most of what I have at water level are in shadow or of questionable technical quality. I'll keep looking. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 18:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:2016 Pałac w Łomnicy 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 21:11:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kiyomizu-dera, Kyoto, November 2016 -01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 10:50:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Unfortunately I can't, Ikan. There were some ugly some wooden barriers that I had to crop. It was really, really crowded but I tried to take pictures from many different angles (cf. my other uploads). Imo this is the best photo I can offer for this kind of motif (main hall plus red trees at daylight). --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Understood, and thanks for your response. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a pity the crowds can't be avoided but the rest of the photo is great. --cart-Talk 11:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support nice colours. Charles (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great colors, great composition but unfortunately it loses it for me in the processing. Sky looks sort of unnatural (particularly that shade of blue) and the landscape at left looks distinctly waxy. Neither might be completely avoidable but I'd have tried harder to address them. Daniel Case (talk) OK, now I'll give   weak support. It still isn't perfect, but now it looks like it's within the limits the situation imposed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Daniel. The sky is ok, imo, and pretty close to the real situation I was facing when taking the picture. As for the waxy landscape to the left, well... This is not supposed to be some lame excuse like "The dog ate my homework", but I really tried to work with the raw the best way I could. Oversharpening wouldn't help though. The thing is, the good ol' EF 17-40 is "meh" at best between 17 and 20mm. (I'm actually planning on updating to the rather new and much improved 16-35 4 next year). I haven't cropped much, in fact the image is at (almost) max res as provided by the sensor. So pixelpeeping at 100%, especially when not concentrating on the more central parts of the image, might not be the very best idea. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I know it's very hard to avoid well but too many tourists on the stage... and think Daniel is right, the sky is a bit purplish as Japanese sky. P.S. I think this angle is almost the best angle for this structure :) --Laitche (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think there is something wrong with the processing, with what I see it can be a too big decrease of the highlights (that lead to a loss of color brightness) and then a too big increase of the saturation to to compensate. I would be happy to have the RAW file and to make an attempt. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Christian. Please also note my reply to Daniel. I really didn't overdo processing here. While it is true that I, of course, decreased highlights a bit, I did not overly increase saturation at all. The usual workflow is a bit different with Canon's DPP when compared to Lightroom... suffice it to say: I kept saturation at standard level. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  Support Thanks you, it's better now. In all cases, one need to be carefull when decreasing the highlights as this affect color brightness and even maybe a bit the WB too. Now your last version is improverd IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Bạc Liêu windpower farm.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2016 at 05:31:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info Offshore windpower farm in Vietnam; photo created, uploaded and nominated by -- - [Tycho] talk 05:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- - [Tycho] talk 05:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great colors, but the composition just looks unbalanced to me. Both sides are heavy with nothing in the middle. -- King of ♠ 11:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King. Very good idea, but it doesn't quite work for me. I'd crop closer to the smaller wind turbines than the suggestion, essentially just to the left of the leftmost one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 65-67 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2016 at 19:39:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Proboscis monkey (Nasalis larvatus) composite.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2016 at 18:03:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info all by Charlesjsharp We observed the adults in a family of proboscis monkeys jumping between these two trees. They went round and round, repeating the jump. Over a period of 15 minutes, the adults encouraged the youngsters to make the jump. This young male was one of the last to commit (so I was ready for him). No monkeys were injured in the making of this composite. -- Charles (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral   Support Nice action image, however, sky is noise. --The Photographer 18:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Great image, but noise. -- King of ♠ 18:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Done noise reduced. Charles (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support In-motion shot. --Mile (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Really nice shot/series. --cart-Talk 19:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Terrific action sequence, and a valuable depiction. Compositionally, I'm reminded of the Futurists, who loved to show people and things in motion, rarely still. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong support WOOOOoooooooooowwwwww ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support. Nicely done. —Bruce1eetalk 07:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --C messier (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Though I'd prefer if you didn't reduce the noise so much on the monkeys, to appear sharper. -- Colin (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 05:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 10:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support :-) --Maire (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Rio Tagus (ship, 1979), Sète 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 17:25:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose The pic is more about the sunsetrise than the ship. The composition looks sort of awkward, the ship's reflection is cut (perhaps an upright or square format would have been better) and the buildings have unfortunately ended up like two giant containers stored on deck. I know how hard it is to get a "clean" shot of a ship in port so I'm truly sorry for coming down like this on this pic.--cart-Talk 10:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Small correction: It's a sunrise. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
My bad, sorry.   Corrected. --cart-Talk 15:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 11:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. --Karelj (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I reluctantly agree with cart's points about the composition, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

File:2016 E-papieros mod 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 16:19:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Ikan Kekek: What you see on the gold case, this is not the noise but the texture of anodized aluminum. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. But I think product photos need to be really special to be FPs. It's a very hard challenge to wow me with them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Obviously painstakingly set up, but Ikan is right. Daniel Case (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel, sorry, had there been say a backlit vapour puff (or whatever you get out of these things) it would have been something else. --cart-Talk 10:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel (1,839 m) in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Lago Covel (1,841 m).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 06:40:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kyoto Station November 2016 -02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2016 at 05:51:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • You're most welcome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Very Le Cinquième Élément. We are really enjoying your trip to Japan and it seems like it might bag you some stars too. :) --cart-Talk 09:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The yellow thing is offputting... Charles (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I didn't think of that as a possible issue. To me, it provides a good starting point for the photo and a good counterpoint to the large open area and staircase in the distance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Could you fix the CA on the far right? -- King of ♠ 15:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the hint - I'd take care of that myself.... but since I'm currently away from the computer which I'm doing my image processing with for another couple of days, could please anyone else give it a shot? Thanks a lot! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

[unindent] The two versions look absolutely identical to me when I toggle between them, and yes, I did clear my cache. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

That's odd. There's a noticeable difference (far right, top) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Плоская Башня Псковского Кремля.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2016 at 18:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info created by Sachkv - uploaded by Sachkv - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Beautiful, but I think it needs perspective correction. Everything to the left of the turret seems to lean left, and some of the leaning is very pronounced. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info My attempt to fix perspective distortion. Please revert, if it's not ok. --Ivar (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I   Support this version. A little unsharpness on the left side in no way cancels out the beauty of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Will have to oppose if distortion cannot be corrected. Charles (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Think distortion is gone, but i wouldnt compare is to this old tower, maybe to white church inside, where windows seem fine. Some strange stuff is inside the lake.--Mile (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 19:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment It looks like oversharpened. There are halos from sharpening around the building. --XRay talk 11:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Saw similar, but more on 200 %. Problem: again not in sRGB color - Sachkv, JukoFF !? --Mile (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    I am not the author of photos. According to this answer to your comments I can not. JukoFF (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overdone is several aspects IMO (distortion, contrast, sharpness, colors). A typical candidate for a prize in WLM, but not for FP, as stated in our guidelines.--Jebulon (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much distortion. --Yann (talk) 10:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support At first sight, the tower looks tilted, but I may be wrong, as the perspective is otherwise OK, particularly at the edges. The sharpening is somewhat overdone, but on the other hand, the noise is extremely well managed, which is really not self-evident. The composition is fine. There is no reason to me to refuse FP star for this image. The quality is still very decent and I'm glad Russian WLM has now quite a high bar on quality (this was not always the case, as you may guess). --A.Savin 23:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Cayambe Equator monument 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2016 at 18:12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Quitsato Sundial is exactly positioned on the equator line near the town of Cayambe in Ecuador. The equator is the narrow dark line that runs through the base of the cylinder. The northern hemisphere is at the left, the southern one at the right side of the line (see image annotations). A student is seen giving explanations to a tourist.
The equator line near the town of Cayambe was drawn by members of the Ecuadorian army after several months of replicated measurements. I checked it - positively - with my personal GPS receiver :-)
There are a number of other equator lines drawn in Ecuador - such as here and here - which, however, are known to be misplaced for several hundreds of meters at least (also checked by myself).
  •   Support -- Cayambe (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - Definitely a good VI/QI, but not a compelling view or composition for FP, in my opinion. Maybe if the sky were more interesting, that might be enough for me to support, though I'd have to see it and decide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support nice and interesting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For sure good and educational but it lacks that little extra for a FP. Some sort of combo of these (1 & 2) would wow me more. --cart-Talk 10:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Top crop is too tight. -- King of ♠ 15:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, good quality but no wow. --Karelj (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Palm Beach County Park Lantana Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2016 at 14:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info This airport just turned 75, as reported in THIS publication: created and nominated by -- WPPilot (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WPPilot (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good lines and I like the way the street grid of the trailer park to the left of the airport almost looks like the taxiways and runways in an airport. --cart-Talk 15:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very clear for an aerial photo. What is producing the red color in the disturbed area in the lower left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support though quality could be better. -- King of ♠ 00:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Nothing like a striking pattern of runways to provide wow. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Map of Hindoostan, 1788, by Rennell.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2016 at 14:10:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
  •   Info created by James Rennell, uploaded by Yann and Zhuyifei1999, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Very detailed map of British India by James Rennell (see the article for details), 1788.
  •   Support This is the most detailed map of India we have, and in addition, it is an important historical document. -- Yann (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment - That really is a great map, and it's in good condition for its age, but I'd love to see a digital restoration. The fold just above Bombay has everything not quite lined up. I'll vote to   Support, anyway, but that's the one really unfortunate problem with the map's condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Chicago September 2016-39.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2016 at 23:32:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Reflections of OneEleven building, Chicago downtown. The structures reflected on the facade are La Salle Street Bridge, the Reid Murdoch Building (both brown) and 121 West Kinzie Street. These two buildings are on the north side of Ricer Chicago. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice, but a bit similar to the already featured File:Chicago September 2016-37.jpg; I'm not seeing what's featurable in this image that isn't already present in the other image. -- King of ♠ 00:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 00:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Different building and very different reflections. You guys think there should be only one example of this genre of photographs as an FP? Why? Do we have only one FP of a dragonfly? Of a sunset? Of a cathedral interior? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    For me it's more than the mere genre: the light blue main building and the beige and reddish brown buildings in the reflection. -- King of ♠ 07:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    We disagree. The photos aren't that similar. And besides, are variations on a theme verboten for FP? There are several other photos of glass skyscrapers in Chicago by Alvesgaspar that probably merit FP designation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    A lot of my criteria are not fixed, but on a sliding scale. Here I don't think the wow factor is among our highest, though sufficient for one feature. -- King of ♠ 20:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Question The subject is not clear to me. Does the buildings reflected en:OneEleven or just that glass? I think here the subject is mainly the reflections and it need to be identified. Jee 04:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info Some info included above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks. Jee 11:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Could you please change the name to something that actually describes what is in the pic? Right now there is a whole bunch of "Chicago September" photos, a very broad concept, at least name the building in the file title. --cart-Talk 11:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Info @W.carter: & @Daniel Case:: I have decided long ago not to give detailed descriptive names to the pictures I upload. Two reasons: first, the effort would be inconsistent with the normal practise in Commons, where any language can be used in the file names and no standards exist; second, for someone looking for something the effective way of finding what's needed is searching through categories, not file names. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Not exactly sure what "normal practice" you are referring to since Commons:File naming (links to this are at the top of the FPC page) says: Names should be: - descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray. The category system is all very well for folks who are familiar with it, but for the ordinary person (not a community member) the most common way of finding pics is to use the search box. Even if the categories show up there, those who are not familiar with them chose the images that appear based on their file name. Question is: Are you organizing your pics just for the community or for anyone looking? There have been several lively discussions at QIC about proper file names and the majority of posts speak for following the guidelines. Yes, language barriers do exist, but a good file name in any language is better than a bad one. Especially with the new browsers that translate between languages. I'm not asking you to change all your files' names, but since FPs are supposed to be the best, I think we should follow the guidelines for these pics at least. cart-Talk 11:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I do comply with the rules in Commons:File naming, at least at a minimal level: the place where the photo was taken (which is also its subject) is referred to, as well as the date. But I won't go any further, with detailed titles like "Reflections on OneEleven Building in Chicago September 2016 - nn". In what FP and QI are concerned, the searching work is much facilitated by the extra categorization given by the FP and QI galleries. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Rethorical question, no need to respond! :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • A response might be appreciated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Conditional support on changing the filename per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have already explained the logic behind my naming convention and this is not the place to engage in a theoretical discussion on the subject. Whether the reviewers consider this picture has the merit to become a FP or they do not. Of course, anybody is free to change the names of the existing FP or of any picture in Commons, for that matter. But I'm not going to do it as a requirement for promotion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Suit yourself, but it means that I will try to remember not to nominate any photo of yours with an unclear name. You see that it is losing you support in this thread. I won't change my vote, but I think that cart and the others have a point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  Neutral after reading Alvesgaspar's response. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:A bad sales day.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2016 at 17:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Let me see if I can remove it --The Photographer 21:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Another possibility would be to include more and not crop out part of the bags. I understand cart's point about them being part of the street scene and serving as a counterweight, if you want that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I simply removed it because regrettablythe raw file was in a Beria hard drive that stopped working recently. Please, let me know if it is better or need rollback, thanks --The Photographer 23:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Better for me, not sure about others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Maracaibo was one of first colonies in S. America. Good to see some from there, otherwise, how you always get so much noise (like first version) ? --Mile (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@PetarM: I find this amount of noise in a image taken at ISO 100 unacceptable, and it is really is how my old D300 can genuinely be expected to perform and I've half a mind to sell it someday in mercadolibre. I really like the way the D300 handles, but the actual end results are, frankly, disappointing. I tend to accept that, but also I will say that this camera has a lot of other features and capabilities that can not be provided by any other camera on the price range so full of benefits that this ISO 100 noise is a very very small problem. If you look at the histogram of everything is at the bottom half of the histogram. While this isn't underexposed and even when well exposed the D300 can show noise in shadow areas. I have compared this camera to other D300s and my conclusion is that there is a problem. My shoots are raws and admittedly, the D300 is always a bit muddy... and at higher ISO's a bit smudgy. --The Photographer 21:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Another great documentary pic. I'm not bothered by the bags, they are part of the street life and sort of counter-weights that side of the photo. --cart-Talk 21:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm mystified as to why this should be FP. Charles (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't let yourself be carried by the river (votes), my recommendation is, if you do not feel that this image should be featured on the first impression, there is no simply reason, you could vote negative using "no wow". --The Photographer 23:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support I think you've found your "niche" as we say, namely street photography and urban decay. This gentleman's face and posture is perfect. This area of photography takes a photographer with courage and a lot of heart. I hope you get the equipment you need thru the crowd-funding or on your own. Street photography focusing on people is so full of possibilities. More people!   lNeverCry 01:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Urban shot. --Mile (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow. Charles (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    With street photography the wow factor can sometimes be replaced with how much power the image has to make you think or feel a certain way; a certain feeling of empathy and sympathy. If this doesn't do that for you, than I understand completely, and I respect your decision to oppose. lNeverCry 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree. I actually think that the so called "wow-factor" is a rather poor expression since it doesn't cover all the emotions a pic can bring out. I tend to think -Could this photo belong in a National Geographic or Time Magazine article? If so, it should be a FP, it's a photo that makes you look twice or even three times. cart-Talk 15:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It all depends - up to a viewer. Neither NG shots are so good, i suppose some half would be out of FP. Or look at most expensive photographs - i would not dare to nominate some 70-80%. Macro shooter and urban have different world, not much in common. So if I see NG and Time fire photographers and use free Wiki i wont be surprised. --Mile (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support per INC and cart's comments on Charles's oppose. I would add that while the image of the man alone would be enough for me to support, putting him in the context of his environment and that striking diagonal perspective line ups the wow for me. Not only does it increase the aesthetic attraction, it dramatizes the man's situation, that he is at odds with the order of the world he is in. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment from both an aesthetic and technical perspective top right corner is not so nice. Charles (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a man on the street, I doesn't see any encyclopedic interest there, sorry. Jiel (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Human beings and how they live in and respond to their environment is of the utmost encyclopedic interest I would think. lNeverCry 07:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  Comment The man's face is not in focus. If this type of human interest image has aspirations then it should be technically spot on. Better now that garbage has gone. Charles (talk) 12:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: The photo is static too, so I certainly agree with your point about sharpness/quality. lNeverCry 15:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, not my taste, and a bit unsharp.--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose technically speaking, very fault image (I can't understand why it's so noisy, and the colours are little bit over)... about removing the rubbish, I disagree with Ikan as in the previous version we can see that he is seating in the same place that people rest rubbish. this could be more explored, however being there is enough to tell that to us. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 03:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
PS:The name of the photo induces the reader to one thing that could not be true, did you talk to him? You seems far from him, and photo is about connection, specially people's photos; I couldn't connect with him, the empathy is hampered here.
FYI, you can see the explain about the noise UP --The Photographer 16:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I tend to believe that is not true:Category:Taken with Nikon D300, specially when we select:
Maybe a contact with Michael Gäbler could improve your technical deficiency...
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 18:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Rodrigo.Argenton: If you think a 250$ camera is enough, why are you asking for a 2000 $ camera to WMF?, btw, I could have lent you my camera to do that job --The Photographer 19:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Стадо овци со ридот Костомар во позадина 2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2016 at 23:26:18 (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 per opposes. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2016 (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.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /lNeverCry 01:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)