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.


VOTO!

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

RrjedhaEdit

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


VotimiEdit

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 (d.m.th së paku 67% apo 2/3 e votuesve të jen PËR)

KandidatëtEdit

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

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Rhapsody (ship, 1996), Sète cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 May 2016 at 05:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rhapsody (ship, 1996)

File:Imperial Academy of Arts Panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 May 2016 at 00:15:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saint Petersburg, Russia: building of the Imperial Academy of Arts
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Florstein - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 00:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A.Savin 00:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 00:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another standard Florstein, but the colors in this picture are especially nice. --King of ♠ 01:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Certainly a nice building, but I don't love what's on either side of it. I think that for me to consider this kind of shot a FP, it would need more sky, with nice clouds (especially, dramatic ones), or perhaps some really great light, such as the streaming yellow sunlight that you can get shortly after sunrise. Sorry, I know this may seem a bit nitpicky. It's a very good photo, but it's not quite FP to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a nice capture with good detail though I agree with Ikan that it would benefit from more sky. But it is way over-processed. Compare File:Imperial Academy of Arts.jpg. The white in the other photo is peach yellow/orange in this. While such a change could occur with "golden hour" lighting, this photo was taken at 13:16, 17 October 2015, which is far away from golden hour as one can get. And golden light wouldn't explain why all the grey elements (street signs, cars) are blue-grey. It's too contrasty too. I'd support a neutral version where Photoshop Lightroom sliders were more conservatively set. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Abbaye d'Hautecombe.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 7 May 2016 at 22:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abbey of Hautecombe from the Lake of Bourget

File:AtardecerPlayaDoForte1-feb2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 May 2016 at 22:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset in do Forte beach, Cabo Frío, Brazil
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me --Ezarateesteban 22:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like the composition a fair deal. However, to me, this photo looks a lot better at thumbnail and full-page size than it does at full size. At full size, the sky looks noisy. Perhaps you could improve the photo by denoising the sky somewhat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @Ikan Kekek: I tried to denoise a bit all the image, look if it is enough, furthermore I provide the original source file, so if you or another user wants to improve the image I'll be very greatful, I authorize, off course, to upload the improves over this image. Best Regards and thanks for your revision --Ezarateesteban 23:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
That's a substantial improvement, to my eyes, though others may be able to do more. Moderate support from me now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Elite Residential Area Ottawa Lamanai 10.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 7 May 2016 at 14:30:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mayan ruin - Administrative and Elite Residential Area, Ottawa
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I love the composition and subject matter. The only thing I find to be a real drawback is the hazy light, but that's not close to a reason for me not to support featuring this photo, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Almost a painting… 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support more pictures from Lamanai! ;-) funny we both went there only a few days apart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Cape Skink Flowers.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 May 2016 at 07:07:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cape Skink (Trachylepis capensis) on purple Aster flowers.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Prosthetic_Head - uploaded by Prosthetic_Head - nominated by Prosthetic Head -- Prosthetic Head (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Prosthetic Head (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Interesting and high-quality photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flash colors, shallow DOF, composition could be much better, now i dont know is it animal or flower about. --Mile (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, I'm not sure what you mean by "Flash colors", I didn't use a flash - just sun light. DoF is quite somewhat shallow, but I don't personally find it a problem. I disagree about the compostition but respect your oppinion, it can be rather subjective. Prosthetic Head (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I see its made with compact, hence some low IQ, i still dont like reflection on skin, and compo could be better. --Mile (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • {{neutral}}, I like it, but without Meta-data the experts here (not me) have no good clues what might be wrong.Be..anyone 💩 10:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support, updated. –Be..anyone 💩 11:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment, the meta-data must have got stripped from the file when I did the crop. I'll try to add it back. Prosthetic Head (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version with complete meta-data included. Thanks for pointing this out Be..anyone. Prosthetic Head (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Laguna Hedionda, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 50.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 6 May 2016 at 20:19:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Colourful shop oasis near the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Colourful shop oasis near the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia. All by me, Poco2 20:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 20:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More Bolivia! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 21:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Strong support for this amazing photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Also, to further explain, the reason I wanted this photo to be nominated is that it's an amazing sight, the strip of habitation and colorful mural in the middle of the desert. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not convinced yet, technically. Colours appear oversaturated (esp. the red house near center) with some overexposed areas to the left (not blown but washed-out), and there’s a bright seam along the horizon line suggesting that the sky is unnatural. --Kreuzschnabel 09:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Shows the barrenness of the landscape. --King of ♠ 02:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support what an amazingly colorful picture of a barren landscape --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:I-DPCN at work 03 (4203528315).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 May 2016 at 14:45:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bombardier 415 dropping water.

File:Cathedral of Mount Mary, Old Goa.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 May 2016 at 11:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cathedral of Mount Mary, Old Goa
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question What’s that terracing in the foreground, taking up 60 percent of the frame? For a picture of a church building, I’d like to see more of the building. --Kreuzschnabel 14:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    • First of all, thank you for your interest. To clarify, it's not a picture of just the church building, in that case I would have put up an image (or a close-up) of only the building itself. The intention here was to show the church in the context of its surroundings by using a low-angle composition and framing. This image presents the point-of-a view of a little kid who is standing on the base of the steps and looking up to take all the steps that lead up to the church. The church is located at an elevated level. The foreground is worn out steps covered with dry grass and leaves and convey the feeling of deserted and lonely surrounding of the church and they are very much integral part of the photo to establish the mood and lead the viewer to the church which is at the end of the steps. I hope this explains my idea as I captured it. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
      • It works in those terms. I'm sort of Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral about whether that makes it a deserving FP, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm tempted to oppose, unless there's a good explanation of how unusual or important those terraces are. I give you credit for trying a non-traditional composition, which I think is a good thing to try, but I lean against this being a really good and featurable composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your interest. I have tried to explain my intention/idea above, if that helps. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Узкоколейный тепловоз ТУ8-0427 с туристическим поездом на станции Гуамка..JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 6 May 2016 at 11:02:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Narrow-gauge diesel locomotive TU8-0427 with the tourist train on station Guamka.

File:Mengshäuser Kuppe mit Kruspis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 May 2016 at 06:12:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Jörg Braukmann (Milseburg) - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I don't know whether this will be judged an FP or only a good QI, but this is the only way to find out. I think it's a beautiful landscape, and it reminds me of some of the landscapes my father painted in New England in the late 60s and early 70s. It's a composition with several distinct grounds, if you like, rather than just a foreground, middleground and background, and then a sky with dramatic clouds. Among other things, I really love the very green mown grass crops in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from me, sorry. Certainly it is a nice scenery, but the image as such does not strike me outstanding nor even flawless (overexposed clouds). The ruined house on the lower right might have given an impressive subject :-) Foreground shows no mown grass but growing crops on a field, as does the middleground. Cropping, err, the crop out would give a better composition IMHO. Altogether nice but not exceptional. --Kreuzschnabel 09:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I respect your opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Paseo Ciclista.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 14:42:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Français : Cyclistes sur la piste cyclable du pont de San Juan de Aznalfarache, en Andalousie, en Espagne.English: Cyclists on the bike path San Juan de Aznalfarache, Andalusia, Spain. (Google traduction)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Abel Maestro Garcia - uploaded by Tyseria - nominated by Tyseria -- Tyseria (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tyseria (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – it’s really a brilliant idea and beautiful lighting, lots of wow. But then you somehow overdid it. Severe colour fringing on all structure edges, haloes from tonemapping, many blown/oversaturated patches, sharpening artifacts. Can it be redone? It’s a pity for the fine idea. --Kreuzschnabel 18:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Per Kreuz, but also, pictures with watermarks are per se disqualified from FP consideration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel, and I'm not sure about the Flickr transfer with no review. This image is tagged with a CC-0 license here but is PD-Mark on Flickr. @Yann: @Jameslwoodward: Is PD-Mark from Flickr still a no-go? I haven't dealt with PD-Mark images in depth since I've never really seen many uploaded, but this image lacks a license review. INeverCry 20:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. I hope you can solve the issues mentioned --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above, especially the PD Mark issue. -- Poké95 06:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As noted above, the license is not valid. I have removed the {{cc-0}} tag, because it is not CC-0. A CC-0 license is irrevocable. The Public Domain Mark is simply an expression of opinion that the work is PD, but it can be changed at any time. Licenses for Commons must be irrevocable. Technically this is a {{speedy}}, but I have put a {{delete}} on it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because license issues, watermark, none possibility to succed here Ezarateesteban 11:26, 27 April 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, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 17:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Khaoyai 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2016 at 16:13:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Solid FP --The Photographer (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good compo --Mile (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tyseria (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lots of heehee but no wow on my side, sorry. In other words: Definitely funny but not outstanding as a photograph. Sharpness impaired by noise. --Kreuzschnabel 18:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Per Kreuz, and I find the blurring in the middle of the picture frame very distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 20:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. INeverCry 20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hehe trumps technical issues --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mainly because of the blurring in the middle. It's a funny image though. --Cayambe (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Would be probably better with more DoF + less ISO, but I like it nonetheless --A.Savin 15:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Guepier d'europe au parc national Ichkeul.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2016 at 15:18:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
The main subject is the bird, however, everything else is important too and pay attention to every detail is relevant because small details is what make a ecepcional image. --The Photographer (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For 500mm on K5 its OK. That shadow in eye problem a bit. I dont mind that stick, not problem. --Mile (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tyseria (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bit loss of detail on the plumage but still very impressive. --Kreuzschnabel 18:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zcebeci (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 03:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good. Charles (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good picture, bad work. All over posterisation and luminance noise. Maybe it comes from over-sharpening and de-noising at the same time. --Hockei (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:2014 Cenzura.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2016 at 14:55:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Allegory of communist censorship, analogue picture taken in 1989 in Poland
  • @Jacek Halicki: In the description, the date is given as 1989, while in the date field it says "1 October 1982, 19:00:00". INeverCry 21:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy background does not fit this one. I like 4th version, but face. --Mile (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. I guess it was impossible to avoid a certain degree of grain --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 07:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:2015 Swaledale from Kisdon Hill.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2016 at 09:48:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Kreuzschnabel 09:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I hesitated long if I should nominate this one but finally decided to get your opinions about it. Beyond a very fine view into Swaledale, it also conveys the contrasting Yorkshire Dales scenery formed by the green pastures below and the more brownish moorlands on the hills. Took some effort to avoid overexposure in the clouds which, of course, shone brightly in the backlight. --Kreuzschnabel 09:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kreuzschnabel 09:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very well done! --Hubertl 09:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like this landscape a lot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely. Looks like a painting. Very well done technically, too. --Code (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice view and well executed. --Pugilist (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe some crop in bottom. --Mile (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I already cropped some of the foreground off. Found it best this way to maintain a U-shaped darker frame around the sunlit curved valley. --Kreuzschnabel 17:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tyseria (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 17:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is so attractive নকীব সরকার (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria dell'Orto (Rome) - Ceiling.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2016 at 08:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Santa Maria dell'Orto (Rome) - Ceiling.jpg
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I'm not sure what others will say, but I love the decorations and the resplendent shafts of light, and I'm willing to accept the shadow at the bottom of the picture as a side effect of natural lighting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support interesting light effects, maybe a bit overprocessed (sharpness, saturation) but FP for me. --Hubertl 09:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Put some contrast down or minus saturation. --Mile (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 17:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Annunciation (Leonardo).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2016 at 08:53:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Annunciation (Leonardo).jpg

File:Saint Kitts - Brimstone Hill Fortress 04.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2016 at 06:45:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brimstone Hill Fortress, detail of the Orientation Center.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Caribbean feeling (Brimstone Hill Fortress, St. Kitts: Orientation Center). All by me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Not obviously spectacular - it looks like a private house, not a fortress - but, perhaps ironically, a very peaceful picture. The area to the right of the fortress is a bit blurred at full size, but it looks fine at full-page size, and the picture would suffer if it were much more closely cropped on the right side (a bit closer might be fine). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good composition and colour management. --Kreuzschnabel 09:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Kreuzschnabel --Hubertl 10:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was thinking of nominating this myself -- Thennicke (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tyseria (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 17:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Hubertl. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Magnolienbaum, Wiesbaden-Biebrich, 360x180, 160409, ako.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2016 at 06:00:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A flowering magnolia
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Spherical panorama of a flowering magnolia. The picture was taken from underneath the tree. I think it's an unusual view of an interesting subject and therefore could be special enough for FP. Please do me the favour and look at it in the panellum viewer before voting. All by me -- Code (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Code (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 06:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Almost a hypnotic effect. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very fine rendering, and excellent lighting control. --Kreuzschnabel 09:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question How do you plan to fit in some article if viewer isnt part of Wiki ? --Mile (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Not at all - at the moment. I hope there will a suitable technology in the future. --Code (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Rosapelikan beim Putzen des Gefieders.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2016 at 20:58:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rosapelikan while cleaning the plumage.

File:Gruga-Mustergärten-Bee-Home-Garden-2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2016 at 20:58:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Show garden Bee Home Garden inside Grugapark
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Show garden Bee Home Garden inside Grugapark. This area of the park is a "showroom" for landscape contractors.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm not sure if all is enough sharp Ezarateesteban 22:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice scenery + well composed, sharpness is OK --A.Savin 00:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Per A.Savin. Interesting and unusual photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the composition is too busy. The elements on the left pull toward the left while the elements on the right pull toward the right, leaving nothing to draw the eye to the center. The cut-off tree on the top right is also not ideal. --King of ♠ 02:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KoH. INeverCry 04:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose technically as good as usual, but the composition is too busy, therefore not FP for me. --Hubertl 17:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like this composition because it seems full but well-ordered, the quality is good, beautiful colors. Ultimately it looks messy, but it is not.--LivioAndronico (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Basel - Roche-Turm mit Stadtansicht bei Abenddämmerung.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2016 at 19:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Basel: Roche Tower during dusk
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Switzerland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm impressed that you avoided star trails completely, but could you please talk about the shape of the moon? I thought I was looking at some kind of eclipse, as the light and dark parts of the moon don't form a circular shape together. I like the rest of the picture but wish the upper crop of the trees on the left were less random-looking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Image with very short exposure
Hi Ikan Kekek: I can't say much conserning shape of the moon. This is exactley how the camera the moon caputured. Look at the example image with the very short exposure. To retouch this eclipse-effect is not really difficult, but is it so distracting? Why do you think the crop is random? The image object is clearly defined: tower on the right side, the far away cityscape on the left side connected by the river rhine. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the strange shape of the moon is distracting to me, or I wouldn't have mentioned it, and for what it's worth, I don't see it in the short-exposure picture. The crop looks random on the trees on the left side of the picture, not above the building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The image example with the short exposure was to demonstrate the moon-shape taken by the camera. Sadly you don't argue why the crop should be random. Do you want more or less trees? The trees on the left enframe the image in my opinion, I see no need to chance this, sorry. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't tell you to change the crop of the trees. Not all my comments require action. However, I would need for the moon to look more normal for me to consider supporting this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
You asked what I meant about the crop of the trees, so I'll try to explain. The trees have a very jagged shape. If there were a way to either include their tops or crop them in a way that seems satisfying (such that some thought about the uppermost shapes clearly was taken, however that could be done), I'd consider that superior. I'm looking again, and yeah, the moon really bothers me because it looks like a partial eclipse of the sun by the moon. But again, high praise for your stars! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The trees look like they are looking after being cut in autumn-time the year before. Either the trees nor the shape of the moon are main objects of this image and I can't understand how they are distracting the whole image. But there is no need that we agree. If other users also mention that the moon-shape is disturbing I'll retouch it, but for the shape of the trees I'm not liable and I like this shape. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Because I look at the entire picture, not just whatever the photographer may think their subject was. I didn't say I insist you do anything with the trees. I may feel impelled to vote against what's otherwise a very nice picture because of the weird moon, and in spite of the great stars, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the moon is a bit weird but you don't have to retouch it imo, it's not that important an element here. I like the composition and image quality very much. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poké95 06:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 07:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Looking again, I think I see a dust spot just below the upper rightmost tree branch. Please fix that (even if you won't fix the moon). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Following your description I can't find a dustspot. Please make a mark on the image. Thx. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
You have to look at the picture at full size. It's a black spot under the downward curve in a branch off the upper rightmost branch. I don't know how to mark a dustspot. How do I do it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
This wasn't a dustspot but a bird or s.th. like that. Dustspots are regulary not so black and much more bigger. I have erased it nevertheless. But for the image impression/quality it is irrelevant IMO. For the Annotation tool look at Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. If it was a bird, no need to erase it. It just looked like a black spot to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 02:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Hornbill closeup profile 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2016 at 13:16:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Southern yellow-billed hornbill (Tockus leucomelas). Pilanesberg national park, South Africa.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Prosthetic_Head - uploaded by Prosthetic_Head - nominated by Prosthetic Head -- Prosthetic Head (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Prosthetic Head (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the sharpness is not enough and I also would not have promoted it to QI. --A.Savin 14:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Savin, & I see the the lighting and the close crop on the beak as issues. INeverCry 18:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A.Savin, INeverCry, I think you are being too harsh on sharpness. Many of our bird FPs are low MP such as 6MP or much less. This is 16MP from a compact camera. Downsized to 6MP version would be a fairer comparison to many FP. The crop is tight and the face in some shadow but the backlit beak is extraordinary. I can't find another photo like it. I think it shouldn't be dismissed so easily. I wonder if extending the left a little (possibly with a little creative Photoshop if no wider crop possible) and lifting the shadows might help. -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • For me, the main issues are the crop (it almost gives the visual impression that the bird's beak would straighten out a bit if he had more room) and the shadow on the face and neck. I could support the image if something like what you suggest was done about that. INeverCry 20:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There are also some sharpening artefacts at 6mpix, and given a relatively small resolution like 6mpix I may demand better quality. --A.Savin 23:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice picture, but I do feel the crops are tight on both the left and right. However, I completely agree with Colin on the backlit beak. Being able to see the blood vessels in the beak is amazing, and for that reason, I offer this photo mild support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Like INeverCry I don't like the cropping --Rettinghaus (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the comments, I personally like the lighting - it's a matter of taste and which features one wants to highlight. I agree the crop is a little close to the end of the beak, unfortunatly the only way to extend it would be to add "background" by synthesis which I don't want to do. If that means it's not suitable for FP I'm ok with that. Cheers! Prosthetic Head (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I had a play with synthesising a little more background, not sure about the result and even if I can get it looking perfect I don't really like the idea of inventing pixels.
    Hornbill with synthetic BG
    Prosthetic Head (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - In that version, there are some strange artifacts to the left of the beak. Otherwise, I like it better, and since you're using a bokeh that blurs the boundaries of everything beyond recognition, anyway, why is it a problem for you also to fudge things by extending those blurred colors a bit to the left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Palazzo Fontana Rezzonico Canal Grande Venezia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2016 at 12:29:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Palazzo Fontana Rezzonico from the Canal Grande in Venice

File:Lápida cerca de San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 147.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2016 at 04:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I find this photograph very moving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me it was really shocking,… There are many places in the world where the location of an accident becomes in a kind of memorial where temporarily flowers, candles but also permanently gravestones are placed/erected. In this case they left a big deal more there and just removed the bodies. I happened to talk to Chilean colleagues a few days ago about this picture and they confirmed me that this is quite unique in their country and don’t know another example of this. Thank you Ikan for the nomination! Poco2 09:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank, you, Poco, for the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think stuff might be interesting, but that have to be explained (description). --Mile (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Poco, would you like to add a bit more content to the file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I’d prefer to see the horizon in the background to get a better feeling of dimensions. --Kreuzschnabel 09:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, Kreuzschnabel, I can only offer this crop Poco2 20:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Moving and technichally good photograph. Agree with others it could be improved by a bit more description and perhapse a very similar photo that includes the horizon would give sense of place. Prosthetic Head (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:The Rotifer Notholca sp.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 18:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Notholca

File:Solitaire berk (Betula) in een prachtig landschap. Locatie, natuurgebied Delleboersterheide – Catspoele 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 17:08:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Solitary birch (Betula) in a beautiful landscape.
Zie this photo: Solitaire berk (Betula) in een prachtig landschap. Locatie, natuurgebied Delleboersterheide – Catspoele 02.jpg Other composition.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Dominicus. I like that composition better. It gives my eyes more to travel around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

File:2013.07.01-21-Wustrow-Neu Drosedow-Blaugruene Mosaikjungfer-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 17:06:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blue hawker - Aeshna cyanea, male.
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please consider that insects don't have real colours. The colour arises from light refraction in its skin (or what ever the name is). --Hockei (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The bokeh is a nice abstraction all by itself. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Cordoba Center Hotel in Cordoba, Spain.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 16:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cordoba Center Hotel by night.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ElBute - uploaded by ElBute - nominated by ElBute -- ElBute (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is a night view of the Cordoba Center Hotel in Cordoba, Spain, illuminated in blue because of the World Autism Awareness Day 2016.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ElBute (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, it´s a fine motif and well done, but not good enough to be featured. Especially because of the ghosts. They are avoidable. Therefore only QI IMO. --Hubertl 17:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree with Hubertl. Also, the composition is good but not super-compelling to me, though the context is a strong supporting point for the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • (weak) Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, I like it, especially the colours (blue lighting in blue hour) are nice. Regarding the ghosts, I see only one issue (people to the right of the entrance) and it is somewhat not a big deal for me. However, I would like to see this photo used somewhere (WP articles or so). So far only weak support. --A.Savin 02:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though I would have crop a big part of the empty road at bottom. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yeah, I think your suggested crop would help a lot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Ok guys, you're right. Could I do it right now or not because the image is being reviewed? In any case, I'll crop it as soon as the review process is finished. --ElBute (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC).
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yes, you can do it now and then ping everyone who's voted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice blue-hour image of a street and lit building. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The image has been cropped for some of you requested such action. I agree it looks better now. --ElBute (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:AT 50473 Justizpalast Wien, Iustitia - Emanuel Pendl 4293-HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 16:21:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:2016.04.21.-01-Mannheim Vogelstang--Vierfleck-Zartspinne-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 13:35:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Anyphaena accentuata, female

File:Rough Collie Canberra 2016.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2016 at 03:09:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rough collie in a reclining pose
  • I don't see anything wrong with either; could you please elaborate? Is the objection to do with the dog being in the shade? And what is a better crop, in your opinion? Thanks -- Thennicke (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I put notice what kind of shot i would take. Sometime detail is much better. I would move down and to left. Taking care when dog will move head etc etc (to capture first legs and head). Anyway, to get dog for Feautered i think some work is necessary to get something. This is more problematic than portraits. --Mile (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Among other things, I don't like the very blurry background and don't see the justification for it. It's not like you're trying to focus on a tiny gnat or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, it's standard practise in portraits and photos taken of similar-sized things to blur the background; it helps the subject stand out. In fact, I used a much smaller aperture than is usual; many would open up to around f/3.5. And in the interests of me learning, could you please elaborate what the "other things" are? Thanks Ikan -- Thennicke (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't love the light. I think it's fine to have the dog in shade, but then maybe greener grass would help give more sparkle to the picture. In terms of my comments about just how blurry the background is, my objection to that is probably fairly idiosyncratic on this board, but I find the degree of blur unpleasant, and since the very blurred area is so close to you, it's not like it needs to be so blurred to show distance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the explanation. This is a really normal DOF to see when taking pictures at these distances, for a full-frame camera. Can't do anything about the grass; it hasn't rained here in 3 months :P -- Thennicke (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • So you probably can't take a photo of the dog in shade on the grass right now that I'd consider a FP. But the rains will come, eventually. As for the blurred background, others will vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree with my colleagues. The crop is fine, though maybe a little more space could work. The colors are not bad, quality is at the level, the DoF is well chosen. The dog is nice, in a nice standing. The only thing that prevent the image to be outstanding is the light, some area in the background are lighted by the sun, sadly not the dog... Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Christian Ferrer: Thanks for the helpful review! The issue you pointed out is actually the same I had with the image, (though I still consider it featurable). -- Thennicke (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Christian. INeverCry 02:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. It certainly is a nice portrait of the dog, but the dull, cold colours of background and shadows spoil it. Not bad, but also by no means outstanding as a photograph. A lower point of view might be much more interesting, by the way. Have a look at other FPs of canidae. --Kreuzschnabel 09:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Washed-out color, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Thurston the Great Magician - Strobridge Litho. Co..jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 May 2016 at 18:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Mordechai Keidar.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 May 2016 at 18:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mordechai Keidar - Ph.D Israeli Scholar, researcher and lecturer of Islam and Arab culture. Became famous for being one of the few Arabic-speaking Israelis interviewed for Arabic satellite channels such as Al-Jazeera. Image created as part of the People Pictures Project of Wikimedia Israel.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Arielinson - uploaded by Arielinson - nominated by Arielinson -- Arielinson (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Arielinson (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark at bottom, and the book is too obviously a prop. I'd prefer a more natural/relaxed pose with more even light, and maybe more space. INeverCry 02:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works for me - well done --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This is really somewhat of a gut-level oppose vote: I react differently to a laptop screen than to books on a shelf. I find the text on the TV segment on the laptop behind and to the right of the subject to be overly distracting and a little gimmicky, though I understand the reason for it, as described in the second sentence of the file description: "Became famous for being one of the few Arabic-speaking Israelis interviewed for Arabic satellite channels such as Al-Jazeera." But I don't see that sentence as necessitating a laptop picture of him appearing on Al-Jazeera with a particular message. If the laptop were cropped out, I'd give the photo another look and might support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the idea of this as an environmental portrait, but this is too much environment at the expense of the portrait; per Ikan, I find the computer screen unnecessary. Cropping it out would probably simplify the image wonderfully, although it would also make it much less environmental. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:William McIlvaine - The Chickahominy - Sumners Upper Bridge.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 May 2016 at 18:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Chickahominy - Sumners Upper Bridge

File:Canal e o Barco.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 2 May 2016 at 13:59:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A watercourse with beautiful scenery and boats found in Cabo Frio (Rio de Janeiro)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Karina Mello - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Foreground in shadow; boats cut off by handrail; no wow. INeverCry 02:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I think I agree with INeverCry. The foreground being in shadow doesn't bother me, but I think the boats would probably need to be in full view for me to support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Cathedral of Petrópolis, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 18:37:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cathedral of Petrópolis, Brazil
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Catedral de Petrópolis or Catedral de São Pedro de Alcântara (St. Peter of Alcantara Cathedral) is located in Petrópolis, near Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil. All by. -- The Photographer (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The Photographer (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sure there's another way to re-nominate an FP than changing part of the tile to English. A /2 or something? Anyway, the original nomination is at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Catedral de Petrópolis, Brasil.jpg. -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesn't address any of the issues I raised in the previous nomination. All that seems to have happened is that the image has been cropped vertically, lightened a little, some reflections on the floor cloned-out, and the white parts of the walls and dark wood gone over with a very heavy NR brush. The rest of the image is still as noisy, the stained glass no clearer or sharper, and the colourspace still AdobeRGB. The crop is an improvement, but the interior really would benefit from multi-frame HDR to capture this dynamic range noislessly. -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I corrected noise specifically located on the roof shadow areas and some areas that seem noise is really cement texture, the reflection of the floor was corrected using cloning, stained glass no clearer or sharper and QI criteria overexposed.svg Overexposed because its not a HDR, I'm fixing right now AdobeRGB to RGB. I don't have a equipment (external shooter) to do HDR. Thanks for your comments. --The Photographer (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The standard of featured pictures of church interiors is extremely high, as witness User:Diliff's photos, but also several other people's work. The ceiling is unsharp in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin & Ikan. INeverCry 03:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose per Ikan. I can forgive the noise and blown windows given that it's a long exposure, but the image should at least be sharp. Colin's suggestion for HDR might well be one of the few instances where that would be desirable for FP status. Daniel Case (talk) 22:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Falcon 9 first stage at LZ-1(two).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 11:27:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

First stage of a Falcon 9 Full Thrust rocket on Landing Zone 1 (LZ-1).
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by SpaceX photos - uploaded by Juandedeboca - nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would crop the image a bit on the right to use the rule of third. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I cropped it a bit. Is it better now? --Msaynevirta (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes. Yann (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support enough I prefer the original crop. Great mood! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I would really rather support the original crop, as I feel that it's a more harmonious composition with the greater area of trees and the additional light right at the right margin. As a viewer, I don't find that the "rule of thirds" makes any sense to me. Maybe it's useful to some people as one general guideline, but I definitely don't like people emphasizing it over concrete considerations related specifically to a particular composition. Would you consider reverting? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with both crops, if the original is better, feel free to revert. --Msaynevirta (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • For me, the rule of thirds doesn't work better here. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support This is a very well-done image. I have uploaded a version that a) isn't tilted like the previous two, and b) keeps the original crop, except for a slight crop on the right to remove the distracting light in the bottom right. Cropping by the rule of thirds here leads to left-right inconsistencies, due to the wide lens used, so along with the "keep information where possible" guideline, it's best avoided. Revert it if you have a better reason. Thanks -- Thennicke (talk) 07:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Great picture, beatiful sunrise. This is the future of space exploration! --Juandedeboca (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC) 
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I'm willing to support this version. It's beautiful, significant, etc., and it's the best of the 3 versions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fine colors, but rocket is leaning to left side (probably some PD), flare is problem and tight crop above. --Mile (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Mile: How do you know that it should be vertical? The rocket is being lifted with a crane... Regards, Yann (talk) 08:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
      • @Yann I had that feeling, i put few notations, check again. Rocket might be in-moving, but other stuff not. --Mile (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I checked EXIF, so its FF cam, i see resolution is some 7-8 MPx on 24 Mpx sensor (croped so much or downsized ?). I use 16 MPx and i think all are at least some 9-10 MPx at least. Copy-paste for lens review: Distortion is quite a prominent factor for this lens...but the lens produces some of the widest distortion results we've seen. For FF camera i expect more, nice colors wont be enough. --Mile (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 03:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on FPC's normal expectation / requirement on verticals, I'll have to agree with Mile and Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. -- KTC (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Posterization on cloud, awkward composition. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose with Daniel Case.--Jebulon (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Faro del cabo Espartel, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 08:12:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Lighthouse of Cap Spartel, near Tangier, northern Morocco. All by me, Poco2 08:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 08:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Another good one from you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 08:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support by DD. Clin 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me a good quality photo, but the composition is too busy IMO, especially in the open-ended foreground with the cliffs to the lower left, and the cactus to the lower right. I think you are trying to show too many things at the same time and my eyes cannot find rest and they are not naturally directed to the main subject, which is the light-house. Due to that I find it has only a little wow. Moreover, I have a question about some strange colors on a rock in the sea (see annotation on nomination page). -- Slaunger (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Slaunger, would the solution be a crop of the rocks on the bottom left?. Those "starnge colors" are nothing else but a painted rock with the colors of the moroccoan flag, not my signature ;) Poco2 22:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    Poco a poco: Ah. The maroccoan flag, of course! Regarding the crop; I do not know. I tried experimenting with it, but could not find a crop, which resulted in a significantly improved composition. I Think that is the lighthouse is really, the main subject, it occupies far too little space in the photo. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • sorry but, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too. A part of the lighthouse is overexposed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition and horizon. --Milseburg (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Slaunger. INeverCry 02:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is that the photographer's shadow at the bottom? Or just that of a cactus? Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per other opposers (a bit of overexposition+composition) Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. Too many things...--Jebulon (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Steinbock 14962940265.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2016 at 07:34:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Berndthaller - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This photo looks great at full-page size and it's a very nice portrait of the ibex in its natural environment and a very satisfying composition, so I'm willing to tolerate the unsharp areas in this macro photo. I also appreciate that the photographer explained what the bluish bokeh background is - the ice field of the glacier. At least in English. If someone wants to volunteer to translate that into German and/or Ukrainian (or any other language), that would be great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 08:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Charles (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to lighting - the majority of the subject is in shadow. --King of ♠ 05:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - When the subject is the only thing that's really in shadow, can't that itself be a kind of emphasis? I think that actually helps the subject stand out, in this case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It can be done to great effect but I don't think it works here. --King of ♠ 02:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Backlighting is a valid technique -- Thennicke (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KoH. INeverCry 01:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The backlighting works for me here ... we don't lose any detail. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The light comes from the wrong direction.--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Polar Bear at Amberley Museum Railway.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2016 at 12:52:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Polar Bear, a W. G. Bagnall 2-4-0 steam locomotive on the Amberley Museum Railway
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm not impressed, either. This is merely a decent picture, not close to one of the best on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have seen quite a number of photographs of narrow gauge steam locomotives, and this is indeed an unusually good one. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. INeverCry 03:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan and Colin. QI I'll grant even though the front seems unsharp, but there's no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Rheinturm - Gesamtansicht vom Medienhafen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2016 at 05:47:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Düsseldorf: Rheinturm (Rhine Tower, television tower)
This crop is because of the central composition of the tower. I have some reserve on both sides and I'll try a different crop. But nevertheless should the tower be here the main object. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm suggesting a crop that's even closer to the tower on its right! However, if you're able to show all of that building, I'd like to see that version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good photo. Give us a excellent photo of the Lichtzeitpegel also... -- -donald- (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 17:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Conditional oppose No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile. If that is fixed I am ready to support. Very good light and exposure control. I enjoyed exploring the fine details at the top of the tower. When seen in its entirety it does not wow me that much, but it is compensated by the light and details. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
    Slaunger: color-space is added. For future: if there is no such info feel free to add always "sRGB" because I'll never use a different. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Taxiarchos228: It is the EXIF which misses this information. That implies that an application which neeeds to convert the numbers in your file to colors have no information about how to do that. Most application will guess at sRGB, but there is no guarantee, especially not in the future. So an application may display colors entirely different from what you intended. You need to upload a version of the jpg, where the color space data are not stripped from the EXIF. See also User:Colin/BrowserTest. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
      • The information was added, no need for further editing any more. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Symbol support vote.svg Support EXIF color space data checks out now. -- Slaunger (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpening halos around the subject. --King of ♠ 23:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, but they aren't --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    To make it more obvious, if you tilt your laptop/LCD screen up (so that you're looking at it at an angle from below), you'll see that the tower is clearly surrounded by a band of lightness. --King of ♠ 02:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    +1 Yes, I see it clearly in the thumb too, perhaps from your HDR-Software? It's typical for that. But ... it isn't visible in full resolution!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There might be halos, but I don't really see them when looking at my laptop screen straight on. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 05:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Portrait of the poet Ilarie Voronca.jpegEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2016 at 19:41:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of the poet Ilarie Voronca by Victor Brauner

File:Groep bomen in verruigd biotoop. Locatie, Oostvaardersplassen 01.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2016 at 06:26:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Simple beauty. Group of trees in overgrown habitat. Location, Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I love your sensibility, and you're not wrong that this is a good photo, but I don't find the composition interesting enough to vote to feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect rule of thirds. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 18:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 19:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC) as Alchemist-hp
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is my favorite kind of composition, but the foreground is just mush. Maybe that's the point, I don't know, but it doesn't work for me. -- Ram-Man 23:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. Lacks foreground detail and needs a more interesting subject. And "rule of thirds" isn't a mark of quality in itself -- merely an easy-to-explain compositional suggestion for beginners. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin; I'd be a lot happier with this composition if the image had been taken from half a meter lower, obscuring the distracting foliage in the background with grass -- Thennicke (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but for me not on par with the bar for FPs of minimalist compositions of a solitary tree in a field. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor foreground detail, per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but not outstanding as a photograph, per others. Too much NR applied to foreground, and there’s a distracting unsharp foreground object is cutting the horizon on the left. @ArionEstar: Once more, this is not facebook. The question is not whether you like it or not, the question is whether you think this is so outstantingly excellent that it deserves to be counted among the very finest photographs there are on Commons. --Kreuzschnabel 06:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Neues Rathaus Hannover, Innenansicht.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2016 at 01:06:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lobby of the New Town Hall in Hanover
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Raycer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me, it's the best interior view I've ever seen. -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I don't like it quite as much as you, as there are some unsharp areas around the edges at full size, but I do like both the photo and the motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise in shadow --The Photographer (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A lot of noise in the dark areas and it is out of balance, something is weird here, and that bright spot at the top, keep bringing my eyes removing the attention to the door, "it's the best interior view I've ever seen" o.O, search for Diliff. -- RTA 12:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
@Rodrigo.Argenton: View, including angle. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice photo -- Jiel (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do like this one a lot. Fully agree with the nominator. -- Ram-Man 23:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 02:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A little luminance noise never hurt anybody. Better than too much denoising! -- Thennicke (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Compared to our other interior FPs, this is very noisy and over-sharpened (making the noise worse). Sorry, but I think if I nominated this as my own, it would be torn to shreds by my friends, never mind my enemies :-). Clearly a subject worth photographing. -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Its noisy, best of it, it has QI mark, where this would be main issue. Suppose Ccefalon was on break. I could not see EXIF to be more straight, hand shot or not...etc. Colors are fine. --Mile (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it has great wow when I see it in its entirety on my screen. If I look at full resolution, sure there is some luminance noise in the darker area, but it is also a 22 MPixel photo, which should be taken into account, it is not a downsampled 'thumbnail'. If we complain about this level of noise at this detail level it will motivate nominators to just downsample instead. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise, worse at edges, per other opposers. Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:PlayaForteSaoMateo2-CaboFrio-Brasil-feb2016-1.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 22:46:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

landscape
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Don't you mean the rock is not sharp enough? <s?I'm undecided on this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Edit summary maybe it's only my bad eyes + DEnglish, I meant "nothing else apart from the lower right rock is sharp". The crop is better, {{o}} disabled.Be..anyone 💩 09:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I will support if the crop suggested is done. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --Ezarateesteban 00:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I suggest other one. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
done, thanks!!! --Ezarateesteban 01:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Please, remove the cut off hill on the horizon at the right. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
done --Ezarateesteban 01:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I Symbol support vote.svg Support now. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flat lighting, no wow. --King of ♠ 02:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm not really feeling this one, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice picture, but nothing special for me, sorry -- Jiel (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. INeverCry 02:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, I'm afraid. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems like a nice place, but it is too dark, lacks detail, and has no clear idea with composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because at this point it would be beyond unlikely that enough support !votes would emerge to offset all these opposes Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Isn't FPX against the rules if there are 2 support votes? Did you miss User:ArionEstar's support vote? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
    • @Daniel Case: Yes. –Be..anyone 💩 10:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC) updated after the following comment: Good FPX for comparison. 13:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Do you guys really think it will get 12 solid supports in the next few days. I think FPX is appropriate here as a nearly unanimous negative opinion. No need to keep piling on. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
        • That wasn't my question. Perhaps you should propose a rule change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I was unaware of that rule; I would like to see it linked. But Colin stated my reasoning for essentially mercy-killing this nom as well as I could. (and the diff Be..anyone linked to says nothing about this rule). Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Where's COM:IAR when you need it? Face-wink.svg INeverCry 05:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Ikan I don't like citing IAR since it can often be misused but yes, a wiki can afford to be flexible. We don't need rules for everything. Most nominators would have withdrawn by now, so this kind of "mercy killing" is fairly rare. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to fight this any further, because I see the sense in your position, but I'm surprised by unawareness of the rule on the part of regulars. It's right on this page, at "Featured picture candidate policy/General rules". Rule 9: Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator. There really is no ambiguity there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
Thanks. But I think some flexibility was required here, due to the age of the nomination and the amount of opposes, again as Colin has said. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC) Ikan, I'm fully aware of the "rules". This isn't the first time this has been done, though. I seem to recall Jebulon doing it, and he's been around here forever. The point of IAR, is that regardless of what the rules say, is there actually a problem here? If not, why cause so much grief. Just let it be. -- Colin (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought we were just having a discussion. I didn't realize I was causing grief. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The grief affects good faith nominations, abuses of FPX as referenced above, other known FPX abuses by among others you, and one case of vandalism by a 'crat. –Be..anyone 💩 02:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per opposers. But the FPX is not appropriate here: we have two supports.--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't know what Be..anyone is smoking but the only "abuse" I see here is the pile-on of oppose votes. So much argument about "rules", which helps nobody. The "rules" aren't going to make this picture into an FP. The point of IAR is that if you find yourself arguing with fellow Commoners about following rules for the sake of following rules, you are not helping. -- Colin (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Blue-tailed damselfly (Ischnura elegans) female infuscans-obsoleta 2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2016 at 17:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Female Blue-tailed damselfly, form infuscans-obsoleta
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Charlesjsharp-- Charles (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Charles (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 18:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support some noise - which I don't mind at all --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A clean and classic damselfly composition with good bokeh. See image note for a proposed alternative crop. Have you tried that? BG a bit (chroma-)noisy. Not a major issue, but quite easy to improve. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose After looking through our other damselfly FPs, I do not think this nomination is quite on par with the FP bar within this topic area concerning detail level and crispness. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Thanks for the new crop! I think it is better now, although I am not quite convinced I can support. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely. -- Ram-Man 23:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but agree with Slaunger--Famberhorst (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nice, and I like the bokeh. —Bruce1eetalk 13:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry guys, are you sure? The quality is imo far away from the bug bar at FP. Looks good at thumb but at full res this one cant be FP! Please have a closer look and look for other featured damselfly pictures for comparison. --mathias K 17:28, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good. --Hubertl 18:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree we have a better FP damselflys than this, but (in terms of detail) we have others that are similar too, and also don't have the tail in focus. But it's very noisy and the chroma noise is very unappealing, so without excellence elsewhere I must oppose. An experienced FP contributor should have fixed that prior to nomination, and there's no response to Slaunger's comment since two days. I agree with Slaunger about the crop improvement too. -- Colin (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noise reduced and cropped as suggested by @Slaunger: and @Colin:. Charles (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mathias is right. --A.Savin 01:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per latest edits. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Missing category! (see the documentation).