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:Münster, LVM-Versicherung -- 2017 -- 6848.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 May 2017 at 04:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Empress Maria Theresia monument in Vienna 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 21:59:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:20120913 Bayezid II Kulliye Edirne Turkey.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 13:40:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Ggia - uploaded by Ggia - nominated by Ggia -- Ggia (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ggia (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like both lighting and mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I agree about the lighting and the mood; however it just feels unbalanced enough to me to keep it from FP. Deservedly a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry,per above --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose perspective --Pudelek (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Statsbiblioteket læsesalen-2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 12:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2017 London Marathon - Men's Wheelchair.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 11:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info Hiroki Nishida leading the men's wheelchair race after approximately 25 and a quarter miles at the 2017 London Marathon. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KTC (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A lot going on there ... the background competes closely with the subject for the viewer's attention—amd frankly the lead racer's expression just isn't dramatic and emotional enough to overcome that. There's also too much unsharpness around the image for a crop to work. Daniel Case (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Salzburg Altstadt Panorama 20170409 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 May 2017 at 09:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia, 2016-02-04, DD 16-18 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2017 at 21:00:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kyrgyz women and child offering bread and salt.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2017 at 20:21:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:MalaDevi Temple Gyaraspur N-MP-283 (51).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2017 at 08:19:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Ezarate: That can be dealt with by renaming the file. It's not a reason to oppose the image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 OK when the image were renamed and description improved I´ll support it Ezarateesteban 17:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Loxura atymnus-Kadavoor-2017-04-23-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2017 at 05:47:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Juan Griego Sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 May 2017 at 00:17:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dechantlacke - Lobau Wien-2475.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 22:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

That's what I liked about it. Thanks! Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Wat Mae Chon ruins 2 -Sukhothai.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 20:55:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 20:30:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
  •   Info created by Nixette - uploaded by Nixette - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Funny how these "morning-stretching-poses" always seems to give us humans a good look at the animal's privat parts. (former cat servant speaking here) Nevertheless, I like the nonchalance in the photo but it could use a little bit better contrast and there is color noise all over the fur that should be fixed. --cart-Talk 21:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per cart and, indeed, the colors in the image   Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I love seeing a picture from Novaya Zemlya, an Arctic island I used to look at in my atlases when I was young and have always been kind of fascinated with. I like the fox, but the very blurry parts of the foreground are distracting. It's certainly a useful photo, though, and I will insert a thumbnail of it into the Wikivoyage article that covers Novaya Zemlya right away. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great pose and the noise doesn't bother me given that it's not too severe -- Thennicke (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Длиннохвостая неясыть.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 20:21:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by Levashkin - uploaded by Levashkin - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very harsh flash, the owl has a somewhat awkward posture, and fully half of the image is just blackness. Sorry. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Julian. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Animals do not pose, and for taking a picture of a night bird, there is no option but flashing. --Yann (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Yann. Sure, we could get some well lit photos of this species during daytime in a zoo, but there is definitely a plus to get a good photo of one in its natural habitat and a flash is the only way. The blackness is not a problem either, it's what you usually get at night in a nature reserve and if someone put a camera flash on me while I was busy hunting down my dinner, I would look startled and awkward too. --cart-Talk 09:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 11:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Peer Juliancolton and if this period is prolonged, logically, the bird is blinded for an extended moment and is vulnerable to danger as it cannot see well enough to respond to its environment. Many strigids and other nocturnal birds are highly dependent on sight, so a temporary lost of sight might be costly, or even life-threatening (due to depredation). Likewise, a night-bird blinded by the flashes, whether by birder’s torches or photographers flashes, are essentially “wasting” time for foraging and other natural behavior. This might have some ecological implication that we don’t know exist, that directly affects the birds negatively, perhaps in lowered prey capture success, leading to nest failure?, or got killed by arboreal predators.. etc. Having said that, there is still a small chance that the bird may react unexpectedly and hurt itself. IMHO “The subject is more important than the photo” more info --The Photographer 19:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh God! In this photo having the status is depicted the killer of people! [1]. :) And she scored 10 positive votes. JukoFF (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Минарет Ајдар кади џамија Битољ (Minaret of Hajdar Kadi Mosque, Bitola).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 10:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:دمشق القديمة - التكية السليمانية.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 09:52:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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

Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Iron Gate (Serbia-Romania) in 2016 - 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 09:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The orange cones are disturbing. Can you remove them? Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    done --Pudelek (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support as I did the other nominee from this set because it further demonstrates the Iron Gate's uncanny similarity to the Hudson Highlands near where I live. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The thing that disturbs me is the unsharp reeds in the near right corner. I'd suggest you crop them out, which is easy since there are so few of them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Cropped :) --Pudelek (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Much better, thank you. I like this picture and will reflect on whether I consider it an FP, as I haven't decided yet. I think the fact that you have the road with the stone cubes and the hewn rock in shadow as part of the foreground helps the composition considerably, as it isn't all in hazy light. That might make the difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above remarks. Looking down and across at the widening water and hillsides does it for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Statue of Louis XIV in place d'armes of Versailles.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 09:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose A QI but no wow. -- Colin (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin ... looks like it was taken with a DP/S, actually, even if it wasn't, and compositionally there is nothing exceptional about it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Certainly useful but not exceptional, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Earth and the Moon 2016-07-05 0428Z.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 06:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
  •   Info Eath and the Moon, image captured by NASA’s DSCOVR satellite - uploaded by Meow - nominated by Price Zero -- Price Zero (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Price Zero (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - What's the yellowish ring around the moon? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • This is because of how DSCOVR EPIC is making photos. It's taking many images on different wavelength and they are stitched together later for one multi-color image. Apparently it's good enough for Earth, but Moon is "too fast" so layers are misaligned. You can see here that on the opposite side there is blue-ish ring. Yarl 💭  20:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the explanation. This inaccurate depiction bugs me, though, so I don't think I can support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral pending resolution of Ikan's question. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While it is stunning to see a photo of both these stellar bodies, I'm a bit disappointed when it comes to such a quality error. When a Commons photographer can get a really nice image by layering photos of the moving moon, using a normal camera and a PC, you'd think that NASA with all its technology and knowledge would know how to adjust layers. --cart-Talk 09:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Tere schoonheid van de Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' bloem 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 05:08:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Theaceae .
  •   Info Delicate beauty of the Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' flower. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harsh light is distracting, and the composition isn't helping it out, either. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Question: Does this photo have less hard light and a better cutout?   --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harsh contrast and posible flash light (because white light). Background distracting, underexposed, composition... --The Photographer 19:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Note: I never use the flash.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:A bird in the park of Karnataka High Court.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 May 2017 at 03:18:42 (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 unsharp image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Les Parapluies de Viborg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 21:20:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks, there are in fact two by Poco and they are great, but this one is shot in pouring rain which I think added a small twist to it. Thankfully, there was a shop with an awning where I could get some shelter for the camera. --cart-Talk 20:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Episkopi 01-2017 img06 Kourion.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 18:41:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Capsicum baccatum in Saúde flea market, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 17:53:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  •   Info All by -- The Photographer 17:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - When I promoted this on QIC, I had a feeling I might see it here. The light isn't ideal, but it's what you had to deal with. Overall, I think it's a nice composition, it's interesting, and the peppers nearest you are quite sharp. I think it's good enough, overall, to make a nice feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A festival of bright and inviting colors. Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very colorful and nice. How did you do this one? Ladder, balcony close by, climbing the nearby stall, or? --cart-Talk 07:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Titoe + 1.90m (my height). I did about 20 photos until I could get the sharpness, due to the low luminosity and my position, it was difficult to keep the camera in the same position. The people in the market know me and they know I'm crazy, I've got people not watching me --The Photographer 13:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I think all of us have some "reputation" where we live.   It took me some time to convince the farmers here I wasn't poaching on their lands. Now their kids come up to me and ask me to photograph their cats/rabbits/hamsters/whatever. --cart-Talk 19:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your lovely comment and I think that apparently we have many things in common and I would like to know more about your history. In Venezuela I remember it was impossible to convince people because the situation there is like a country at war, but here in Brazil people believe that I am a "gringo" (I don't know how define it), the Brazilian is possibly the most welcoming culture that can exist. --The Photographer 19:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support now I'm hungry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 12:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 05:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support WClarke 20:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Ausblick von Burg Liebenstein.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 17:00:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • And I like the bit of structure, though cropping it out wouldn't be likely to change my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Structure at right should be cropped out. Daphne Lantier 19:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a fan of the lighting, where most of the houses' visible sides are in shadow. -- King of ♠ 01:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King. Not much wow to me. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Stargazer and Pegasus F43 in flight over Atlantic (KSC-20161212-PH LAL01 0009).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 15:09:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Панорама на Лазарополе.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 13:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:The Wings, Siemens HQ Munich, April 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 11:41:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

And that's not the only tesseract in fictional universes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm not loving this building, really, but the sculpture is interesting and this is a really well-taken photo that deserves a feature, regardless of whether I feel emotionally wowed or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 11:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Parliament House at dusk, Canberra ACT.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 May 2017 at 06:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Parliament House, Canberra, Australia.
  •   Info All by me -- Thennicke (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support blue hour shot as it should be. You may want to sharpen the pic a bit... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I agree with Martin on all counts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There is a bit of stepping on the high-contrast edges of the building/sky. Is that a result of the HDR blend, or of too much sharpening there? If you do sharpen, perhaps do so selectively. But overall it is good. -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Almost an abstraction like this. I like that the lights are sort of pastel ... a refreshing break from the (potentially) lurid colors usually used for this purpose. Daniel Case (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks a little spooky, but good shot(s). --cart-Talk 15:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for a night shot and the blue hour mood is very well captured. --A.Savin 18:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 12:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Chevrolet Master Special Eagle 1933 - Z16725.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 May 2017 at 20:40:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
  •   Info On a hike to a nature reserve where I live, I stumbled upon this great old car. It was on its way to a vintage car meeting close by. The owner/driver was happy to share some info about the car and I could take some photos before it sped away down the road (a little too fast for me as is evident in one of the pics in the cat). I love that I was able to photograph it on a dirt road in a rural setting since it is from the era of Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger and car chases down American country roads. It also looks the part of a battered getaway car since not much has been done to it since 1933. All by me, -- cart-Talk 20:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 20:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A competent photo of a relatively ugly car. Nothing special enough about this for FP. Daphne Lantier 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Measured support The background is fairly busy, but the car's neutral color mitigates that. Other than that I really like its texture ... it's nice to see one of these old cars in not-quite-mint condition, as if they've been actively driven all this time. Daniel Case (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very interesting subject. Jee 12:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid I have to agree with Daphne. -- Thennicke (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Catedral de San Sarkis, Teherán, Irán, 2016-09-17, DD 66-68 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 May 2017 at 17:31:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kasir (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Serene, also nice to see a church with people in it for a change. --cart-Talk 20:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support "...with people in it for a change". And we are talking about a christian temple in Tehran! Poco2 20:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I like the view a lot, and the picture looks great at full-page size, but at full size, some parts are blurry. If in your judgment, some more processing would improve the quality, please do it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Provisional Support on fixing the CA on the right window muntins. Interesting near-symmetry otherwise, and one too often forgets there are churches in Iran. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    Daniel: the CA is removed Poco2 17:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
OK! Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This is a great VI, but I'm opposing it because of the unsharpness of the chandelier, etc. I feel impelled to compare a church interior against the work Diliff has done as well as other work you and others have done. I would love to support a feature, if you can improve the sharpness of the various elements of this interior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan, please take into account that this is a photo with people in it. Having moving, living beings in an indoors-picture with poor light, will limit the options you have of long exposures as well as the number of shots you can take. All that will affect the overall quality of the pic. If you want a "Diliff-quality" shot of a place with people, you would probably have to equip them with neck supports first. --cart-Talk 14:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not complaining about the clarity of people, only static things that are part of (or if you like, in) the church. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand that, but the static things in the place are shot at the same time as the people so the same settings are used on those too. And seeing now that Poco couldn't use a tripod, I'd say it's remarkable that the photo is as good as it is. --cart-Talk 18:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan: Sorry for not answering your first comment earlier. I didn't manage to upload a new version until now. I've applied some selective sharpening, maybe you find it acceptable. The quality of this shoot is surely not comparable to many others here mainly because tripods are strictly prohibited in the temple so I had to perform the three shots (it's a HDR) handheld, which was not easy. Poco2 17:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support - much better, and thanks for talking about the conditions you worked under. Gnosis, does that ban apply to tourists, too, and do they ban Jews from visiting churches and Christians from visiting synagogues? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this ban applies to tourists, because the government wants to showcase religious tolerance to the western world. With regard to your question about Jews being able to visit churches and Christians being able to visit synagogues, I don't think there is any ban for that, because what the theocratical regime cares is that Iranian Shia muslims DO NOT convert. Also I don't know if you know this but Tehran is the only Islamic capital where there is no Sunni mosque there. Iran has 15 percent Sunnis and Sunnis consist of about 85 to 90 percent of total population of muslims. This is perfect example of their religious oppression towards even other muslims. --Gnosis (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I didn't know that. Unfortunately, I don't think that kind of intercommunal intolerance is uncommon. Most people wouldn't expect that a Muslim country that's as relatively mild as Malaysia would prohibit Shi'ahs from preaching or having any place of worship throughout the country, but that's exactly what they do, so it's presumably worse in that respect than Iran, where Sunnis presumably have mosques in Khuzestan and some other places. But intolerance in any guise is very bad. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree. --Gnosis (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Beautiful and suitable image of a religious place . Metagalaxy (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support beautifulll... --Ταπυροι (گپ) 18:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this picture is very educational, for the vast majority of Iranians who are born non Christian that can't walk into active churches inside Iran due to the government ban on Muslims attending church sessions in fear of possible conversion. About 5 years ago, I personally attempted to go and visit inside this church and the security guards didn't allow me to walk in due to this stupid ban. --Gnosis (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Nokia Networks Munich Office, April 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 May 2017 at 08:40:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Interestellar movie station --The Photographer 12:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good view. --Mile (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good, though I think I'd prefer it without the plane and contrail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Ikan about the plane and contrail. This would be just about perfect without that. Daphne Lantier 18:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment a matter of taste maybe. Imo the plane adds another interesting element... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose On 2nd thought, I can't support with the disharmonious contrail. Daphne Lantier 21:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Another FP in the category of "images that would make me think the band that would use this on their album cover made music I might find interesting and thus buy the album without knowing what it sounds like, especially if the back cover showed a couple of guys with European names standing behind their synthesizers" or "images that would make me pick the book up and thumb through it."

    Yes, I like the idea of it without the contrail, and we could certainly make a cloned-out version, but that's not enough to offset all the other things about this one. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Very mild   Oppose, only because I favor the contrailless version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The contrail is a plus. --Yann (talk) 06:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternative sans contrailEdit


  •   Info Ok guys, pinging cart, The Photographer, Mile, Ikan Kekek, Daphne Lantier, Daniel Case, an alternative without plane and contrail, taken half a minute later. Cloning by nature if you will.
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I do prefer this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this one. The contrail is a bit distracting in the other one, even though it is sharply captured with the plane -- the eye is drawn to the plane, rather than the building or the geometric forms. Also with this one the cloud pattern is better, looking almost like a globe with cloudy continents drifting on it. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Either one deserves to be featured, but I still like the plane. --cart-Talk 08:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support per my !vote above. Daniel Case (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfect! Daphne Lantier 18:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 13:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Lifeguard tower - Morro Jable.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2017 at 14:35:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's nice and vibrant and I'm leaning toward support, but the image is a bit soft as if too much noise reduction has been applied. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    •   Done New version from raw-file uploaded --Llez (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support simple but interesting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good colors. --cart-Talk 19:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A competent photo of a standard lifeguard tower. Nothing beyond a quality image for me. Daphne Lantier 22:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daphne. Good, but not interesting enough for FP, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm a sucker for blue and orange. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Normal composition --The Photographer 15:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good light and great colours. --Code (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Code. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support We need a few FPs like this to remind this is Commons; not Wikipedia. Jee 13:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Coughton Court east view.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 May 2017 at 07:53:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done, I've sharpened the north and south wings a bit Ikan Kekek. DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Qualified support Still wish it could be sharper, but it's still a nice near-symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now because I'm having trouble considering this a really outstanding photo of this beautiful motif, as I'm not satisfied with the sharpness. Maybe I'm being shallow in some way, but I'm not feeling that wowed. If there were more light on the courtyard, etc., that might make me feel differently (of course I realize that rain and overcast skies are much more typical of English weather). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:London Bees v Millwall Lionesses, 15 April 2017 (062).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2017 at 20:03:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info London Bees's Jo Wilson during warm-ups before FA WSL 2 match against Millwall Lionesses match on 15 April 2017. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KTC (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I really like this and the action of the photo, it brings to mind Zlatan's bicycle kick but I think it would be better to crop the pic to concentrate on Wilson since the players on the left side are a bit distracting and it is also impossible to make a cut there without cutting a person. (See crop suggestion) Let's hear what the rest of the folks here has to say. --cart-Talk 20:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support this version, but would be interested to see what a cropped version would look like. Seb26 (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Alternative (cropped)Edit


  •   Info Cropped version as suggested by W.carter. @W.carter, Seb26: -- KTC (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Prefer this cropped version; nice action shot. —Bruce1eetalk 07:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting. And rare. --Mile (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Better, thanks! --cart-Talk 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Obviously   Support this version as well. -- KTC (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakubhal 05:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 06:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice catch! --PierreSelim (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Meisje met de parel.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 23:19:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support Girl with a Pearl Earring has always been the painting by Vermeer I like the least. It should be featured anyway, of course. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2017 (UTC) per discussion below --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support Daphne Lantier 06:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   oppose The image we have here is not the one in the source, and nowhere near as good. The source image much more closely matches File:1665 Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg which claims the same source. That file is 178 megapixels, though I suspect it is actually upsampled (if downsampled 50% it looks much better and is still 45 megapixels). Major differences are that the background in the source is brown with clear cracking; the colour of her headscarf is different, and the dark patch in the scarf near her left eye is not crushed blacked but still shows colour and detail. Further the cracking on the picture shows signs that the image has been oversharpened. So I think this image has had significant colour adjustments, strong contrast enhancement that has crushed the darker areas to black, and strong sharpening. I think the larger image has merit for FP, but needs some analysis to confirm whether its very large size is justified, and if not, what degree of downsizing would restore it to correct sharp proportions.
I have discovered why the source does not match. An earlier version of the Commons page linked to the source JPG (in addition to surrounding information pages) but this was removed by Crisco for some reason. Looking at the link through the Internet Archive here gives a file that is visually similar to this one, though quite a bit smaller. So I wonder if the museum has improved the copy they display on the website since Crisco first uploaded it. I'll drop Crisco a note. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To the best of my recollection, this was uploaded exactly as I found it on the website (as can be seen by the archive link). However, rather than use the automatic download resolution, which was downsampled, I had loaded the image at its full resolution in viewing mode, then downloaded from there using judicious screenshotting. It may have loaded at 125% or something similar as its "maximum resolution"; I suspect the MET's website does the same thing.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
As for why I removed the direct link to the JPG: to the best of my understanding, we are supposed to link to the host web-page rather than the image directly, to ensure any licensing information or similar is readily available. Hence the removal to the direct JPG link.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Chris. So I suspect the image on the web page has changed considerably since you screenshotted it. I think the current version on their website is better is better and the other high-res file (File:1665 Girl with a Pearl Earring.jpg) a better place from which to create an FP (if downsized). This file here is the one used by all the Wikipedias and has been featured, etc. The other file, although from the same museum source, is really quite different. It isn't an obvious case for simply overwriting this one per Commons:Overwriting existing files. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Torre de la Doncella, Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 215-217 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 19:44:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info View of the Maiden Tower during the blue hour Old City, Baku, capital of Azerbaijan. The tower was built according to some sources in VIII-VII B.C. and belongs to the ensemble of historic monuments in the Old City of Baku inscribed in 2001 under the UNESCO World Heritage List. The 29.5 metres (97 ft)-high tower is one of Azerbaijan's most distinctive national emblems, and is thus featured on Azeri currency notes and official letterheads. Poco2 19:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It looks to my eyes like it's leaning back, with the top farther back than the bottom. I'm not sure why. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose trees, strange leaning --Mile (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support something's odd re: perspective, cf. buildings in the background (some verticals are straight, others are not). Still, the overall impression is very wow-y imo. I really like colors & composition. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 17:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment - I have compunctions over the idea that we may be spreading a bullshit story, and I respect those who are upset about a photo taken on the tracks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Any photograph that tells a story that is worth being heard deserves to be featured, and I highly suggest that everyone read the description. Also see my comment below. WClarke 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yann, and anyone else: It is worth noting that there are two photographs (Rabiul.jpg & Robiul2.jpg) that, in addition to this photograph, appear to make up a set. They are all of the same subject in the same place, and they all have the same description, so should we nominate them as a set, as it seems the author (Razurahmanbd) intended? If the author is around, just to be completely clear, are they intended to be viewed together? Thanks. WClarke 21:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I checked the 3 images, I chose this one, which is of better quality and better composition. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support   Oppose See below. A documentary photo that is almost hard to watch... Wrt WClarke's comment, I don't see what three photos can say better than this one photo can. Not sure they are intended as a set as many photographers simply number photos of similar scene/subjects as a way of distinguishing them from each other. --cart-Talk 21:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer 23:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC) I can't support a dangeroux for a children. Thanks Colin for notifiquer it --The Photographer 21:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful neutral A shattering image, but even that cannot make me !vote for an image of someone posed sitting on what appears to be an actively used rail track. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support although Daniel has a point --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel. I very much doubt such an image would be published in the UK by any responsible picture editor -- lest it encourage a child to play on the railway tracks. I appreciate he lives at the railway station, and this is a third-world railway track rather than a busy high-speed line, but there seems no good reason to photograph him sitting on the tracks. Further, the background story, though heartbreaking and one I do not doubt, is unsourced and supplied by an unknown and inactive user. It is hard to see how this image/story could be responsibly used for an educational purpose. -- Colin (talk) 07:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Sure is it encouraging? are we going through something not so much about the image? --2001:B07:644F:23A4:28C4:10AC:2FE9:24D5 19:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Colin: Please stick to review the quality and value of the picture. Making a wrong political statement about children living standards doesn't help. I worked for children living in Bombay Central railway station, helping them to find solutions to their problems, but it seems you really have no idea about the lives of such children. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Yann, I have made no "political statement about children living standards". I'm talking about responsible photography, and responsible sourcing of a story. -- Colin (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Among all probabilities, this track is probably just beside his home, as there are a lot of slums by railway tracks, just because there is unoccuppied land there. Not only it is dangerous, but it is also dirty and noisy. And yet it is his living habitat. It is the place where he spends most of his time, trying to make a living picking up whatever he could find there. So you doesn't know what you are talking about. Still your comment is a kind of political statement. It is arrogant and scornful. You want to decide for the child where he should stay and live. Regards, D (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
          • Yann, could you cool it a bit please. The comments you are making bear absolutely no resemblance to what I've written. I'm not making any political statement. I have not said anything about where he should stay and live. Have you read the links I posted below. It's about photographers and precisely where they choose to pose and compose their subjects, and the effect that has on other photographers posing subjects on railway lines and getting themselves killed. Those parallel lines trailing into the distance are a deadly magnet for photographers. This is nothing to do with the boy. -- Colin (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
            • You don't need to ping me. I always watch my nominations. Yes, your comment has everything to do with the boy. You assume that for him seating in the tracks is a game, or/and that this is a set up by the photographer to make the image more powerful. I think you are wrong on both points. Even if the boy's story is not the truth, he most probably just happens to be here when the photograph passed by. The tracks are his living environment. Why can't he be photographed where he lives? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
              • I have not given any indication, an indication in the slightest, that I think the boy thinks sitting on the tracks is a game. I cannot read the photographers's mind and have no interest in it. I haven't doubted the story, just question the ability for a responsible publisher to use it: it is just a random story on the internet. Real publishers would only accept such a story from a trusted source. I live next to a busy main road, but I don't photograph my children standing in the middle of it. It is perfectly possible to photograph this boy where he lives, without him sitting on the tracks. Yann, I don't think you've taken on board the links I posted below. This image/story cannot be responsibly published, and I'm far from the only person here that thinks so. I'm unwatching this page now. -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sadly, I have to agree with Colin and Daniel. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, sorry --A.Savin 19:32, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support   Neutral. (13:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)) the photograph is visually stunning and is accompanied by background info that really makes it speak volumes more. I don't see the above oppose reasons as strong enough frankly. For concerns about children playing on the tracks, the image is already accompanied by a red box warning, and if you ask me, a child's first thought really could well be: "Look what happened to the kid who ran on the tracks!". That being said, I wouldn't be able to forgive the feeling within me to deny coverage of other stories told worldwide that are heard far less on places like the internet. Although Humans of New York is helping the cause recently, at least this image is freely licensed! Seb26 (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Seb26, photos on railway tracks can look "visually stunning". That's why they are popular and why every year people are killed taking photos on railway tracks, and kids are killed playing on them. See this PetaPixel search for multiple articles describing deaths, the backlash that irresponsible publishers face if they post such images, and a good video highlighting how easy it is to get killed. Despite my comment about about third-world tracks, in fact more people died taking selfies in India than anywhere in world, study says. Way more. and that includes selifies taken in front of an oncoming train. Any publisher using such an image would face considerable negative press calling for the head of the photo editor. That means, despite any photographic qualities, the educational value of this image is extremely low, and on a project dedicated to educational media, that means it is not among our finest, and not FP. I really wish the photographer had taken their photos in a safe location. Please reconsider supporting this; it isn't the sort of image we want to encouage. -- Colin (talk) 08:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • While Seb26 has a point about how a child might view this photo, I've changed my vote based on Daniel's comment. Since I live in an area with lots of inactive rails, I tend to forget the perils in other places. Colin, while the article you link to says that there were 11 train related selfie deaths world-wide that year (which is bad enough) it is about selfie deaths, not train-related, and it also says that "Most of the Indian deaths were water-related". I think this would be a more relevant source. --cart-Talk 11:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
[2] The backlash against a photo on National Geographic's Instagram profile as recently as in the last two weeks definitely concerned me. Thank you for the links. I still feel that this boy's story is related to his home at the station. I don't fault the photographer at all in this respect and do not think that he deliberately decided to have the boy sit on the tracks. But it is right what you say, being an FP means it'll reach the main page and potentially expose Commons to backlash or outrage. I am going to be   Neutral because I can still see that out of all possible photographs and all possible poses made on one, this photograph is going to be the least likely to encourage people or children to do it. Seb26 (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm doubtful about the story mentioned in the file page. The beggar mafia is very strong in Asia. They even amputate the children to attract the sympathy. The children will say the story what their mafia leader teach them. They are mostly associated with tracks; so I see anything wrong in this photography though. They will quickly adapted to that environment and quickly achieve the skills to board and alight from a moving train. Jee 16:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even if his "natural habitat" is among the rails the picture is a very bad double take on it. It says something in the description and shows something that can easily be interpreted in a different way. It also lacks any sensitivity (or rather humility from the photographer's part) that great photographers show in their work, you need not to go any further than GMB Akash, the undisputed king of Bangladeshi street photography to see what I mean. Also as Jkadavoor said above me, it is a thing in South-Asia and everyone should approach any story about a child amputee with caution. Is the story about this picture plausible? Yes, sadly tying up children and/or putting them in sacks and dumping in water part is all too familiar. Is it likely, with the amputation and all? Probably not, but in any case impossible to verify. Finally I'd just like to point out this is about Bangladesh, not India, which is a completely different beast even if they look similar to the rest of the world. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Please talk more about the humility of the photographer. I feel like I could really learn something if you would expound on that a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: what I meant is that the description and the photo itself are at odds with each other (not just content-wise). On one hand the photo itself is very distant, lacking any intimacy (especially the other 2 in the series), like the photographer was only interested in taking a good quality picture. On the other hand the story (true or not) is very intimate but this is not reflected in the visuals at all. I'd say a case of taking a picture for yourself for your own reasons, and you're only interested in the subject as a visual element. Thus my comment about the lack of humility. Again, I'd advise you to browse GMB Akash' pictures of Bangladeshi misery (no better way to put it), read the stories, and see how they connect in a very meaningful yet same time respectful manner, and how he finds the joy and humanity in even those unfortunate people/events. Or like him on Facebook he posts a picture with a story almost every day. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case, WClarke, Martin Falbisoner, Kabelleger, Seb26: Your oppose votes (or comments) are for the wrong reason. Commons is not a place restricted to politically correct images. This is clear a case of COM:NOTCENSORED. I feel it is also a bit hypocritical, when some people criticize other FPC votes for not technical reasons (military, etc.). Regards, Yann (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Yann: First, although my !vote above seems to have started this cavalcade of opposes, I myself did not !vote oppose. Second, if by not participating in featuring this image I am saving lives, I'll take any term of abuse you hurl at me (I have opposed, at least initially, plenty of other FP candidates where I thought the photographer was putting themselves at risk). "Politically correct"? Apart from the increasing use of a once-ironic term borrowed from Chinese Communism becoming battered into meaninglessness when we use it for every point of view we wish to delegitimize without attempting to seriously attack the underlying arguments (to the point that it's often a tacit admission the other side has a point you don't want it to have), I fail to see what is "political" about a very real danger. If National Geographic is not immune from this criticism, why should we be? Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, I changed my comment above. Yann (talk) 06:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I even support the nomination...!   --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not featuring a photograph is not censorship, and not encuraging photographers to get themself killed and traumatizing other people in doing so has hardly anything to do with political correctness. IMHO. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the censorship argument would make sense if we were voting to delete or keep this image. But this image and its story will stay available on this site long after this vote. The selection of featured pictures is clearly very strategic and is evidently about advertising the project just as much as identifying technical quality. There is evidence to suggest this could harm the project, so it is for that reason that I don't think this should be featured. Seb26 (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I did not oppose on grounds of "political correctness" but rather because it's 1) somewhat dishonest and 2) lacking in my opinion (see my reply to Ikan). Besides the concerns about the backstory are valid as well. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per WClarke. The railway sets the environment, and is part of the story of the character. Gyrostat (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Turquoise-spotted swallowtail (Graphium policenes) underside.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2017 at 06:54:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info This swallowtail was so intent on getting salts from the wet forest road in Ghana, that it tolerated me and my macro lens. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 06:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Compo not good, also background, leaf isnt helping neither. --Mile (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The light is a bit flat, washing out some of the color on the butterfly and a bit of better contrast on the background would be nice. Want me to have a go at it? --cart-Talk 08:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • In this case I would need the raw file. Please email me a link to some dropbox I'm sure you have and I'll see what I can do later tonight when I'm home. (I'm at work now) --cart-Talk 09:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So,   Done. The raw file straight from the can was actually very nice and it didn't need that much help, don't know why you tried to get it so very bright (or perhaps I got it all wrong..). I made two versions, the first is just normal fixing plus a few very bright, distracting glints on the sand cloned out, in the second I removed a distracting little dry grass as well. If you like any of them, please use them. The crop is a bit wider too. I also noticed that you snuck in another file, presumably for me to fix. Ok, I'll do that one too for you and e-mail you a link to the result. In the future though, please only send me files that I volunteer to help you with. Best, --cart-Talk 18:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Many thanks. New version much better. I've reworked image to emulate your second version (I'd already done NR). Charles (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I agree that the light is harsh, but I will reserve judgement until I see what cart can do. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks better now. --cart-Talk 21:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I like the butterfly, but I don't like the near left corner, so I'd suggest cropping the butterfly much closer on the left side. Then if you like, you could adjust the crops on other sides, though that doesn't seem essential to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) 10 month baby.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2017 at 16:46:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info Female mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) with her 10-month-old baby. In the Titus Group in Rwanda. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose; it's sort of hard to tell what's what in the image on first glance since we don't see the baby gorilla's face straight-on or any of the mother's face. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cluttered composition, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Keeping in mind that impact can trump other factors, this baby's face moves me, so I think that if enough other people agreed, that would be a sufficient reason for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Per Slaunger. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)