Open main menu

Commons:Kandidate fir exzellent Biller

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 | ไทย | українська | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | հայերեն | +/−

Wann Dir e flott Bild fonnt hutt oder selwer gemaach hutt, an et dir fir Wikimedia Commons wäertvoll erschéngt, kënnt Dir d'Bild hei erasetzen. Wann no 15 Deeg d'Leit positiv drop reagéiert hunn, gëtt d'Bild an d'Gallerie vun den exzellente Biller opgeholl.



Nei Virschléi oder Meenunge w.e.g. ënner folgendem Link bäifügen!

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:View to Castle Hill Peak from Red Peak, Torlesse Range, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 21:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. Another winter image from New Zealand - this one displays Castle Hill Peak seen from Red Peak, Torlesse Range. I personally like the light, the composition and the freezing vibes coming from the stones on the right. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but personally I think this might be a candidate for BW conversion - it's all about the lines and shapes, not the colors. -- King of ♠ 23:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Common brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni) male underside Italy.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 16:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:T-centralen metro station december 2017 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 11:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Asahi Breweries headquarters building with the Asahi Flame and Skytree at blue hour with full moon, Sumida-ku, Tokyo, Japan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 03:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's like the building is pointing at the moon. Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition with the flame pointing at the moon. Pity you didn't blend it to preserve the details on the moon though... -- King of ♠ 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit per King. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Weizen IMG 2713.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 17:10:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures<Plants/Triticum aestivum>
  •   Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Apart from the blurriness and the small dimensions I miss the Wow effect in the first place.--Ermell (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ermell --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell.--Peulle (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell.--Vulphere 07:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:PIA19048 realistic color Europa mosaic.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 11:33:52

  • It could also be argued that an upscale is a major digital change, so should've been added with Template:Retouched image before being listed as a candidate, as per FPC guide.
  • As zooming in unnecessarily decreases the overall quality of the image, it is unlikely to meet several points of COM:IG, such as noise, color and editing. This featured version suffers from severe chromatic aberrations and a jagged planet edge which the original does not. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- BevinKacon (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist because upscaling is pointless as it does nothing except adds file size without improvement in the actual detail preserved. That said, before this goes any further, may I suggest a delist-and-replace instead, replacing this one with the original non-upscaled image? The original still meets minimum size requirements and is by far the sharpest and best quality image of Europa on the internet. Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose@BevinKacon:@Cmao20:@Daniel Case:Much of the commentary above is inaccurate. In the case of the "original nomination", the image had not been upsampled at that point, and the nomination failed, with one respondent as well as the moderator commenting on the supposedly inadequate size of the image. In the second nomination in Commons, after upsampling, the upscaling was prominently mentioned prior to the voting in the first line of the description, as follows:
"Uploader's notes: the original NASA TIFF image has been modified by increasing linear pixel dimensions by a factor of 1.6 (to bring out fine detail), sharpening and conversion to JPEG format."
Given that, the template would have been largely redundant. Note that the non-upsampled version is now listed separately.
In the case of the Wikipedia vote, there were three votes in favor of the upsampled version (The NMI User, myself, and Bammesk), not just one (the latter voted for both versions), and four votes in favor of the non-upsampled version (again counting Bammesk). The non-upsampled version was promoted to FP short of the required five votes, so due process was not followed in that case. Due process was followed in the Commons vote, with 11 votes in favor and one opposed. What justification can there be to reverse this decision?
As for the supposed "severe" defects in the upsampled version, please demonstrate the difference with screen captures. Regarding the upsampling being "pointless", on the contrary, it was combined with sharpening to make the fine geological detail more easily visible, as I will demonstrate in a subsequent post. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Please carefully examine, at full scale, this image: Comparison of mosaics
(Please do not display any other images as the Bot will read them as Alternatives in the nomination and it will mess up the codes for the closing of the nomination. Now fixed. Users are perfectly capable of clicking on the link to see the image. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
which contains corresponding sections of the 2 mosaics, if you want to try to understand why I or someone else might have the temerity to upsample and sharpen an image. By way of introduction, the ice-covered surface of Europa is covered with an extraordinary set of fascinating geological features, including the so-called lineae, linear features that form on a variety of scales via a tectonic process. Now, please look at the smallest lineae and other features visible in the images. From my perspective, the ability to see and appreciate the profusion of small lineae is greatly enhanced in the 1.6x upsampled image. These features of course are real, not artifacts. A lot of the lineae that are easily visible from a normal viewing distance at the larger scale are only visible at the smaller scale if you press your nose up to the monitor, and in some cases not even then. Since these geologic features are, from my perspective, and the perspective of others interested in planetary geology, the most interesting aspect of the image, the value gained in making them much more easily visible outweighs any cost incurred in terms of greater chromatic aberration and/or more jagged edges. It is normal for editing processes to have both benefits and costs, and the net result is a benefit in this case in my opinion. Given that the upsampled version got 11 votes and went on to become a POTY finalist while the non-upsampled version only got 6 and was not promoted in Commons, it seems some others agree with me. WolfmanSF (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Rådhuset metro station in August 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 09:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Sweden
  •   Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, good composition, nice reflection! --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very photogenic subject, clearly distinct composition from the existing two FPs. -- King of ♠ 01:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent image when I thought another good one wasn't possible of this station, and one that makes me feel my regret at not being able to go to Wikimania this year that much more keenly (This may, in fact, set a record for "FP taken at Wikimania" getting that status soonest after the actual event). Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 07:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like this a lot. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I checked the category as I thought we had a similar FP (other than the staircases). I did find a very similar photo and also found File:Rådhuset metro station May 2014.jpg which is nice with the speeding train and stationary man (though the technical quality isn't at FP). -- Colin (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per King and Daniel, excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info A big thank you to ArildV for helping us discover the beauty of Stockholm's metro system that evening and to Rhododendrites for letting me use his tripod for this shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Greenland 467 (35130903436).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 08:40:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:L'embarquement quai des Orfèvres sur l'île de la Cité, Paris 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 07:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created by Jean-Pierre Dalbéra (Flickr) - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks OK, but I'm not seeing the big wow factor here. It looks a bit ordinary, like a photo any tourist could take on any given day.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, it's a good photo and well-composed but I'm afraid it just doesn't wow me very much. I think it was worth a try here though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mo wow and for me too bright --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow.--Vulphere 07:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:20131013-22. Kokneses pils, rudens.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Koknese Castle, a partially-submerged castle complex in Koknese, Latvia, dating from the thirteenth century. created by KarlitoWiki - uploaded by KarlitoWiki - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice find. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: gorgeous colours and nice composition, but too soft --СССР (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per CCCP - also, I would have liked to see more of the reflection in the water for better balance.--Peulle (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition, great light and colours. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice colors, but there's no shortage of autumn FPs and we don't have to promote one that falls slightly short on technical standards. -- King of ♠ 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is autumn mood, but otherwise not much that would make me say wow. Sorry. --A.Savin 02:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very colourful but not much to see.--Ermell (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Kaupanger stavkyrkje 2018 take 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info I think the composition of this image is excellent, in terms of how natural framing is used to highlight the subject. created by Bep - uploaded by Bep - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support for the totality of the composition, irrespective of the effect of pixel-peeping at the dark areas. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very intimate, you chose the perfect subject for this lighting. -- King of ♠ 01:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The framing makes the church looks like it's blushing from being caught in something it wasn't supposed to do. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:SenatorWetmoreInAutomobile retouched.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:11:38

File:Swayambhunath Stupa -Kathmandu Nepal-0336.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@СССР, Famberhorst:   Done Thank you -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition looks disorganized to me, with the corners of the temple on the right being cut off and the stone structures on the bottom not really coming together to direct the viewer's eyes to the golden temple. -- King of ♠ 01:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake Benmore with surrounding hills, New Zealand 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#New_Zealand
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I quite like the composition and how the clouds fit into it. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Only thing keeping me from strong support is the almost-blown clouds at right, although there may have been nothing you could do about that. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support If the sun lights up a white cloud, it should be "Oh my eyes are hurting" bright to look at, and there is no detail anyway. Sadly we don't have HDR JPG yet, but please don't turn them paper-white just to please FPC reviewers. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Really refreshing. -- King of ♠ 01:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sublime beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 10:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bonnet Macaque DSC 1125.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 18:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created & uploaded by Shankar Raman - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 10 years old picture but still stands out for me. Big wow. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik. Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Shot at the right time -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. (Minor point: I think it's evident the monkey is in fact yawning, so I wouldn't use scare quotes around that word in the file description.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really poor quality. Nothing in focus. Look at the teeth. Charles (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Not perfectly crisp, yet not particularly bad either. I wouldn't go as far to say "really poor quality". And it's surely an unusual photo. --A.Savin 02:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Winter auf der Abtsrodaer Kuppe.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 12:15:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Volcán de Ollagüe, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 80-88 PAN.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 11:10:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Volcanic landscape featuring from left to right Tomasamil (5,890 m or 19,320 ft), Cañapa (5,882 m or 19,298 ft), Ollagüe (5,868 m or 19,252 ft) and Aucanquilcha (6,176 m or 20,262 ft), Andes, southern Bolvia/northern Chile. c/u/n by me, Poco2 11:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 11:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Strong support That's one heck of a panorama. No stitching faults visible, at least not to me, and sharpness is great everywhere. Cmao20 (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 26-27 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 10:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's the worst on the top left, actually, I added a note. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
СССР: Still surprised to categorize that as "strong CA", but anyhow, it's gone. The right side is also "fixed" since I've cropped it Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's neither gone nor looking any different, actually. --СССР (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll be home tonight and will check it again with a better and calibrated screen. If there's actually room for improvement regarding the CA, I'll upload a new version latest tomorrow. Poco2 10:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The angle is not as striking as the former POTY finalist, but the resolution is better (I suspect the other image is cropped from a wide-angle shot to minimise distortion at the edges). Overall the composition is sufficiently different for a new FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think this could work with some of the clouds cropped off the top (and corresponding crops to the bottom and sides to better center the church), As it is I feel like putting my hand to my forehead to shield my eyes as I view this. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case: I've applied a cropped overall but rather than doing it the same way at each side, I did it considering the content Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:North-west facade of the Castle of Chambord 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, and I like that it shows the castle from a different angle to usual, but I think too much of the image is in shadow. I'm also not overly sold on the people and I think it would have been better if you could have waited for them to leave. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    I was lucky that so few tourists were in the picture. This is the Chambord castle, where is always the tourists. Tournasol7 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I don't mind the tourists; I've been one and they're not taking away from the image. However, I think you could crop a little tighter to get rid of some of the distracting elements of the foreground (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Daniel Case.--Vulphere 03:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much of the foreground is in shadow. -- King of ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Grand'Rue in Colmar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose A lot to recommend it, but I think it would look better in stronger light. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Were it not for the cars, this could be a painting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree the cars are a big negative and likely need to get up early to avoid them but that's what the postcard photographers do. Wrt looking like a painting, yes this doesn't look like a photo. It has been overprocessed, with a very heavy hand on the Lightroom sliders. Compare File:Colmar (31617330537).jpg. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Solitär in der Hamburger HafenCity.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 06:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info High-rise appartment building on the corner of Osakaallee and Tokiostraße, HafenCity quarter Hamburg, as seen from Überseeboulevard. The building is an example of the solitary architecture that this part of Hamburg has been criticised for. c/u/n by Frank Schulenburg
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Reminds me of this FP of mine. Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bold, striking image that works well because of the contrast of red against blue. Cmao20 (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20 -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A building with slight vertical distortion is not supposed to work - but somehow it does. -- King of ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great. --Aristeas (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-07-20-Dingle Lighthouse-0673.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 23:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @W.carter: Yes, that is indeed a typo. Why I thought that was German for lighthouse, I have no clue. Thank you for the notice--Boothsift 00:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The German term would be "Leuchtturm" (Lighttower) :-) I fixed the typo to lighthouse --Superbass (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Superbass. In the future, please wait until the nom is finished before renaming a file since it messes with the codes for the nom. I'll keep an eye on this and fix the links if this nom is successful. --Cart (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I had no idea this could be a problem. Thanks for the hint and for a correction if necessary. --Superbass (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but do fix the typo. Daniel Case (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Extremely picturesque and nicely done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment A very nice view that deserves FP IMHO, but, Superbass, can you please fix the perspective (see on the right the buildings leaning out)? Poco2 10:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a very fine perspective problem at the tiny houses in the background. I have tickled a correction out of Lightroom using guides in zoomed view: Click. Unfortunately this costs pixels at the edges of the photo. I personally prefer the image composition in the candidate photo and find the minimal slant in some of the tiny houses acceptable, what do you think? --Superbass (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Proper perspective correction in photos taken from top to down is extremely difficult to get right and often distorts the photo too much, so usually it is not done. --Cart (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with Cart. When "looking down" the verticals slope outwards rather than inwards. When we "fix the perspective" are are pretending the camera was pointing straight ahead and with a very wide angle lens -- sometimes the distortions of that virtual-lens are then too negative in their own ways. I can only see the sloping when pixel peeping. -- Colin (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Common tern at Brooklyn Bridge Park (21040).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 20:07:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by and uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 20:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 20:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks, Boothsift. Taken while hiding behind a bollard while she did some fishing. (btw I say "she" but AFAIK they are sexually monomorphic, so I'm not sure). — Rhododendrites talk |  22:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support "For everything, tern, tern, tern, there is a season ..." Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice photo, but aren't FPs of birds this size usually sharper? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose Per Ikan, a nice one, but not outstanding in comparison to others. I also prefer seing wild life pictures in a wild life environment Poco2 10:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. --Hockei (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems reasonably sharp to me. A bit noisy in the darker areas, but I prefer noise to unsharpness from too much NR. Cmao20 (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Common bird. Concrete perch not good. No definition to feathers at all. Nowhere near FP quality in composition or technical standard. I'm amazed at the positive votes. Charles (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Weird halo around the bird's head. Concrete is also not great. -- King of ♠ 01:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Microcentrum retinerve Mex2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 13:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice wings (or should we say leaves?), but not the head out of focus. The framing is also not optimal in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Basile, not bad though and an interesting subject. Cmao20 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes wings are good, but head is not in focus and the framing is odd. Charles (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per above. -- King of ♠ 01:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Vincent van Gogh - Self-Portrait - Google Art Project (454045).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 03:44:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:ETH Zürich im Abendlicht.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 03:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Weak oppose Sorry but the more I think about this one, it's not at the level of an FP night shot for me. The composition is not especially appealing, although I'm sure the image is very valuable and useful. Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Cmao; without metadata I can't be sure if this was the best possible shot, i.e. it looks like it might have been a long exposure but I can't tell for sure. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cmao--Boothsift 23:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The dark trees of the foreground make the composition cluttered. The quality is not exceptional, with these buildings at the distance lacking sharpness. Blown highlights through the windows of the main building are not really successful, it would have been more interesting to make the interior visible, with HDR for example -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I generally agree with Basile's points. I also am not so impressed with the quality and amount of noise, compared to some other blue hour photos we've featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Louisa May Alcott, c. 1870 - Warren's Portraits, Boston.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 19:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Die Schöllenen Schlucht mit Teufelsbrücke im schweizerischen Kanton Uri.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Indeed, the stitching errors are still visible, as CCCP points out. Have added notes to show the worst-affected areas. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now that errors are fixed. It's a shame that we've still got that sudden transition between the sharp and the unsharp area, but that's something you only see if you pixel peep. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Composition does not work for me. I'd need more sky, maybe more to the right or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: the errors are still present; would gladly support otherwise. --СССР (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile and СССР.--Ermell (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree the composition isn't working. Just a bit jumbled. And there are still large stitching errors and it looks like some of your frames are blurry, which isn't fixable unless you have more frames to choose. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I see the image has been changed considerably, including the composition. Wolfgang Moroder, you should really ping those who have voted already after making such big changes -- this is no longer the same photo. Unfortunately the problems with stitching remain and aren't minor. The biggest remaining problem is angles and verticles. Look at the nearest bridge right-hand-side. Compare File:Teufelsbrücke (Devil's Bridge) high in the Swiss Alps.JPG. The upper line of bricks should fall at an angle (the edge is not vertical) but is a straight line, whereas in this photo is is seriously bowed and changes direction. The lower two sections of bricks should have a vertical edge, but here slope considerably. Compare also the right hand side of the photo with the railings and little tunnel -- the vertical walls and rails aren't vertical. There are quite a lot of blurry areas which mostly are hard to spot if I downsize 50% to 24MP, but aren't so much a reason to oppose than to wonder why upload at full res if the quality isn't there. In my experience a hand-held panorama is possible to FP level, but a big gamble and I take many extra frames to try to ensure success. Here I don't think the gamble succeeded, and a wide-angle lens would have created a more reliably accurate picture. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment The perfect photo does not exist. Who cares for the vertical lines, angles and rails if you almost don't notice them. This is not an architectural photo where perfect vertical lines are requested. But, if you don't like the water, the bridges and the rocks, the misty sky and the overall atmosphere of this photo as I and some others do, just feel free to oppose, no problem. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    I agree that the perfect architectural standards should not necessarily apply to a landscape photo. And the composition has improved with the edit. I just don't think it is among our finest, with these flaws: we are not short of landscape FPs. -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done @Colin:, @Peulle:, @Boothsift:, @Daniel Case: Thanks for the comments and support. I uploaded a new version without (I hope) stitching errors and different crop. Please feel free to revise your support. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are still significant errors in this third version, at the top right corner, three long black oblique lines. I did not inspect the whole image deeply because it's quite a thankless job to look for such technical flaws with so large images, but I think at least these obvious mistakes should be fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Power lines -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment Not an error, those are overhead power lines.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - You fixed the compositional problem very effectively, in a different way than I thought of. Kudos! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Ansberg Blickrichtung Süden 120324.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View from the Ansberg in Franconian Switzerland southward. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd be interesting to see the frame divided exactly into 3 parts of the same hight (trees, mountains, sky) but this is still working for me. Simple, pretty, nice colours. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Idyllic. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice but remove the big dust spot and the minor spots in the sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nevertheless--Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Pretty, but the composition doesn't work for me. The hills would, but the trees kind of just sit there and interfere, so it seems like two separate ideas in two layers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Ikan. We often use foreground to lead into the distance, but here they seem to form a barrier. I tried a crop like Podzemnik considered (e.g. 16:9 excluding bottom) which makes the trees a layer of fire at the bottom, but still unconvinced. We have so many layered mountain views at FP, this one isn't quite working. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the reverse leading to infinity. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. The idea is good, but I think a 4:3 aspect ratio is not the most effective way to convey it. You can either go wide (at least 8:5) to emphasize the horizontal lines, or make it a vertical composition to emphasize the different layers (on this particular image that might not work so well as there are not enough layers to do that, but I'm saying in general for these types of compositions). -- King of ♠ 01:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Hakatere River valley, Canterbury, New Zealand.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2019 at 20:44:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural#New_Zealand

File:A 95 year old woman with her pet rooster, Havana, Cuba.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2019 at 17:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Tomer T, the "rename the file after the nomination" is because a rename during a nom will mess with the codes if the nom is successful. I've put this on my watchlist so I'll fix things after the closing. --Cart (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Cart, maybe if I change the name of the nomination page it will work better? Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Tomer T, well technically yes. If you move the file name, you have to move the nom-page too to the same new name and see to it that all the names are fixed in the top part of the nom and put a speedy-delete on the old redundant nom page. If you are not sure what you are doing, mistakes can make things worse. If you rename a file after the nom is closed, the redirects will sort things out nicely. Just leave it be for now and I'll fix it later. --Cart (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support That's quite a fun picture. Cmao20 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Opinel N°10 Carbon w bread on wood.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 22:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
  •   Info French Opinel pocket/folding knife with bread; showing the typical stains of a carbon steel blade – created by Chianti - uploaded by Chianti - nominated by Chianti -- Chianti (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Chianti (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting subject, but the strong reflection on the blade is distracting, and the composition with the bread is not very good. Regards, Yann (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you for your opinion. A technically perfect photo of these objects without blade reflection exists with File:Opinel-bread-01.jpg, but it lacks wow. The light-shadow distribution here is deliberately chosen to highlight the blade, the correct word is therefore not "distracting" but attracting the eye of the viewer. It is intended to be as "distracting" as the sheets in this image. In fact, this photo thoroughfully composed with larger dark parts in the top left and lighter parts in bottom right, with the smaller lighter spot on the bread crust bottom left and the darker spot top right for balance. The locking mechanism of the knive was placed in the middle of the diagonal of the latter two – a diagonal that puts the highlighted blade on the overall darker side of said diagonale and the darker part of the knive (the handle) in the overall lighter "half" of the picture. Even the shape of the bread was intentional to "reverse repeat" the blade point and curve. I hope this helped you to understand the idea of the image and why I chose it from many others of a series; also this was a short introduction to basic and classic principles of composition of Natures Mortes. There's some more like a dark "L" contrasting with a lighter "L" (as I would call it), feel free to ask if you want to know more. To make it more easy for you I made an annotated image here referring to my comments, which also may help you in the future when it comes to judging photos regarding composition. Regards, Chianti (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You would have much better chance with exposure like File:Opinel-bread-01.jpg. I suggest you try again with a clean table, and different compositions with the bread. Personally I would like to see the whole bread. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose According to Opinel's website this is an outdoor knife, suitable "to work difficult materials, trim branches". It would seem more appropriate, for cutting bread indoors, to use their bread knife which has serrations. While I appreciate your explanation of the care taken over the composition of the photo, ultimately the opinion of whether the photo works is in the eye of the beholder, and if Yann finds the reflection distracting, then you can't just argue that away. For non-obvious photographs, it is better to explain your work up-front than have to potentially defend it after being opposed/misunderstood. Still, one can't please everyone. I think the long thin aspect-ratio of the framing is peculiar and not ideal, both in terms of composition but also utility. It seems more the photo has been cropped around a knife-shaped rectangle rather than the objects arranged within a more conventional frame. The perpendicular arrangement of the blade to the viewer is not dynamic. The knife is resting propped against the bread as though someone where taking a photograph of it, rather than its normal resting position of flat-side-up. The overall effect is a bit contrived.
The photo of the person cutting bread on Opinel's breadknife webpage is imo a better image of what is after all a tool that is designed to be used. If one is determined to make a still-life involving bread and a knife, then some more elements would help, such as additional slices, and perhaps the food that is to be placed on top. We do tend to prefer some educational utility for the image, rather than still-life art for its own sake (though it has a place). So you'd get more support if it was more clearly educational. For example, food photography of delicious bread and toppings making me hungry for it, or hand-tool photography showing the proper knife being actively used to cut bread. -- Colin (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have several of these myself, I carry at least one with me all the time, and I use them indoor and outdoor. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I like the composition, it works well for me, and I appreciate the skill involved. For a more clear FP, however, I'd prefer to see a shot that's a little bit more dynamic - for example, as Colin suggests, a photo showing the knife being used to cut bread. This is a good still-life and overall I think deserves a feature, but it's not the kind of images that grabs you straight away. Cmao20 (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I was going to support, as this is way better than the other photo in terms of color and contrast, i.e. it makes you want to have a slice of the bread, until I read Colin's oppose, and I just can't unthink it, so to speak. The more you look at it after reading, the more you'd want to see a serrated knife in the image. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Colin--Boothsift 22:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Acker-Winde IMG 2708.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 17:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order : Solanales
  •   Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 18:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a QI. This is an extremely common flower, of which we have hundreds of comparable images on Commons. At only 3MP this is a long way short of the detail and composition and lighting we expect at FP in 2019. Seven Pandas, Vulphere, FP is about the finest on Commons, just just a pretty flower. I don't think you are doing the necessary homework before supporting FP. Fischer.H, I have fixed your FP link, would you please take more care to get your nomination right. -- Colin (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but I'd like to see something more special for a flower FP - like interesting lighting, great composition, crisp sharpness or high resolution. The composition is good but unfortunately I'm not getting more of the mentioned things. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others; I don't think that background does it any favors. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others; sharpness is good, but the resolution and detail don't quite match up to many recent flower FPs. Cmao20 (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others on this image, sorry--Boothsift 22:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Sumba sheeps 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 06:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sure they're not sheeps off the old block?  Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Would make a great "Hello from the Farøe Islands!" postcard. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 06:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Never been to the Farøe Islands, would like to some day--Boothsift 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice view of a place I indeed don't know, but the technical level is not FP, there is a very clear drop of quality on the right side. Furthermore, it needs a perspective correction (look at the houses on the right leaning out) Poco2 10:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This is not architecture photography. Normal top-down view, and the horizon is correct -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Chalet du Mont-Royal panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2019 at 05:17:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Canada
  •   Info: all by -- СССР (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 18:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, no wow. -- Colin (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good picture that illustrates its subject well, but I agree with Colin, it's not a massively imposing or impressive building, and although the sky is blue, it's quite dull and featureless. Cmao20 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very wowing--Boothsift 22:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Senfweißling auf Pusteblume.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 06:15:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info created - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 07:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The out-of-focus seedhead doesn't work for me, nor does the yellow background. Butterfly is very sharp. I'd rotate a couple of degrees too. Charles (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles's complaints about the background. Daniel Case (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I have to agree on the background – while the butterfly itself is great, the distracting intensity of the screaming yellow spoils it. It feels like sipping a wonderful wine out of a candy-coloured plastic mug :) Try to lower the yellow saturation a bit, that hardly affects the rest of the image. --Kreuzschnabel 06:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --per Charlesjsharp.Fischer.H (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Fischer.H, you are expected to give a reason for an oppose. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Looking at the photographer's uploads, the background is natural and makes a pleasant change. Also nice to see full size high resolution images of insects, which I don't recall seeing much of since Jee stopped taking photographs for FP. We've got used to <10MP recently, which is a bit of a backward step. I see insect photos up to 40MP in this photographers's upload list, which is a bit more like it for 2019. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A bit more like it? Many photographers cannot afford 40MP capability. Jee's and my cameras only have 24MP. Charles (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin - not perfect, but great considering the size. Cmao20 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I also agree per Colin. A wonderfully sharp image, and, as for the yellow background, well, why not? I know how much effort and how many dozens of shots it takes to achieve such a high level of detail across the frame if the subject is alive, which I assume is the case here. My regular 42 MBit images of live insects usually whittle down to 10 MBit or less, thus my full respect for such a convincing image displaying an incredible width of 5531 pixels! By the way, this is the first image I have encountered lacking EXIF data. Any reason why? -- Franz van Duns (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Franz van Duns the missing EXIF might be due to whatever software was last used to save the image. Some of the more basic programs just discard it. Alternatively, I think Photoshops "Save for the web" also discards it due to an 1990's mindset about saving a few bytes. You could ask the photographer what they used. Btw, Megapixels (MP) isn't the same as MBit (which is just filesize and depends on compression used). Filling the frame with an insect requires good kit and good technique and an awful lot of patience for failure. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Colin Thank you for your answer and your quick reply. It seems that the vast majority of contributors uses software that does pass on the EXIF data, more or less unchanged. Opps, I admit I was slightly distracted when I typed "MBit", when "MPixel" was what I actually meant. By the way, each one of my RAW files is approximately 85 MBytes (680 MBit) in size before being processed to the final JPG image. And yes, I also agree that much, much patience is the requisite element contributing to that singular image that stands out against dozens, or even hundreds, of technically perfect, but simply less outstanding images.
  •   Support --Boothsift 05:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 10:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Interior of the Tokyo International Forum Glass Building, Japan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 02:13:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 19:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Really, really great idea, pity it’s literally full of denoising/sharpening artifacts at 100 percent view, even in the center of the image. I cannot find a single natural-looking edge. Towards the corners it looks rather like a painting than a photograph. I think a stitched panorama would have done much better here instead of an ultra wide angle shot. --Kreuzschnabel 06:16, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pixel peeping? There's almost no sharpening here. It was shot @100 ISO with an excellent lens, then sharp from the beginning. No need to increase anything. A stitched panorama would have certainly given the same result, but with the risk of potential stitching errors. This ultra wide rectilinear lens is very adapted in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   strong oppose The problem here is that the light is awful (and the noise Kreuzschnabel sees when pixel peeping is caused by lifting the shadows to try to lighten the dull interior). We're supposed to be selecting the finest on Commons, so compare with two other photographs on Commons of this building: File:Tokyo International Forum Glass Building 1.jpg and File:Tokyo International Forum Glass Building 3.jpg. Both are high resolution though have pixel-peeping issues. But wow, the lighting in those photographs is amazing. Rather than dull shade colours as though the building had solid walls and roof and some tiny windows, we have bright sunlight colours, with a multitude of patches of light through the glass atrium. This nomination is a long way short, photographically, from those images. -- Colin (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately the quality of those 2 images is quite bad. I also suspect a strong processing. Here this is an authentic blue sky. And the post-treatment is very mild -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think "authentic blue sky" or "mild post-treatment" are feature-worthy attributes. Nearly the entire interior is in dull shade. For a glass atrium this is particularly unfortunate. The quality of the other two photos is just fine, except for pixel-peepers. They would both print A4 to high quality and and make spectacular covers for an architecture journal. This photo, regardless of the quality of its pixels, would be rejected. -- Colin (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry but if you call this a picture with bad lighting you should take basic classes in composition and buy your first architectural magazine. You should take a look at the image as a whole and its distribution of lights and shadows and the constrast and balance of the lighter and darker parts. The photos you linked to don't come even close to this one, they are like candy coloured exstasy trips with few overall contrast and almost flat lighting. Some like this style, and it's merely a matter of taste but not of quality. You obiously don't like the pic and that's okay, but you should say the truth. To call it bad instead is a terrible misjudgment.--Chianti (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
dispensable contents
  • Chianti, word of advice about your recent votes/comments. As a photographer, you'll earn respect for your opinions on lighting and composition by taking, uploading and nominating great photos that are fantastic examples of such. And some Commoners, such as Yann, do so by repeatedly successfully nominating images by others. Lecturing experienced photographers as though they'd only just picked up a camera and are working out where the "on" switch is, or experienced Commoners as though they hadn't successfully nominated hundreds and reviewed thousands of FPs already, is going to piss off everyone real fast. Btw, lighting and composition are separate topics, with their own classes and books (of which I have many). If you look, you will see that the alternative image I think is better, has pretty much the same composition (it is clearly an obvious decent spot from which to take a photo). The difference is purely the quality of light. There is a reason why "dull" in English means both poor light and unexciting. This building can look great when lit well, and this is bad lighting. -- Colin (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  N Colin has "a very bad habit of attacking people in a decent speech", Yann said recently, and this opinion is shared by many of us. Only 2 weeks ago another user felt attacked by the same. And immediately after there have been more disrupting comments on the FP talk page, on the same register. Now saying Chianti "is going to piss off everyone real fast" is not only hostile but above all extremely impolite. Enough! There's a policy, here: Civility - which should be respected, especially by experimented users. These kind of rude reviews are really too unpleasant. I don't really care about the strong oppose Colin gives for weak reasons, so often I receive sterile reviews by him like here and there, better to ignore. But attacking that way another user is pure disruption. Stop! -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Basile Morin could you take your grudge elsewhere. I find it a concerning that you're digging up links from fr-wp, which is a bit stalkerish. To be honest, I don't think Yann would want that episode resurfaced, because it didn't end well for him, and I've put it behind me and above I'm actually defending Yann from comments on another FPC by Chianti which are just as rude as the ones here. I think we can all see who is uncivil here (and btw, Wikipedia policies do not apply on Commons). If you have a specific complained about a specific thing I have said today, then comment on that. But this sort of mudslinging and digging out reviews from a year ago to try to rubbish my review, is a personal attack. I opposed your dull photo. Grow some balls and deal with it. -- 23:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
How very Fake News Donald "I'm the least sexist/racist person in the whole world" Trump-like to have you cite NPA after making a clear personal attack on me, and a creepy one where you clearly have researched the rest of Wikimedia to find dirt on me, and found one from four months ago on French Wikipedia. Basile, what you are doing is just one personal attack after another. I get you are upset I opposed your photo. Please stick to telling us how wonderful it is. You will note that in my disagreement with Chianti, I am focusing on his comments here (and another related comment to Yann on an FPC on this page) which are quite unacceptable, and have not made any personal attack on him nor dug into his history to find something else bad about him. Only you have done this. Don't do that. -- Colin (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •    One more provocation. We're not talking about Donald Trump and politics. Now check the facts and don't twist the reality. Only a few months ago, on Commons (yes, here) Yann said ""Colin, I advise you to stay away, and stop insults to me." certainly because he felt attacked. That occurred during a long and painful DR nominated by Colin, and the file was kept. Not a success for Colin. But insults are usually very counterproductive. Also pinging someone to tell him "piss off" is extremely inflammatory. Nonsense. Boring -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The events of that DR did not turn out the way you claim. Look at the image history now. The green tinted photo is history. And it was Yann, not me, who got admonished over their behaviour at that DR. He got very upset about his image going to DR, just as you are upset about an oppose vote. That wasn't typical behaviour for Yann, and we have both moved on since then. You really have no right to dig about in people's past, and unpick other people's old forgotten disputes, unrelated to a FP nomination, simply so you can find a handy insult to fling at me. By repeatedly raising off-topic (and off-Commons) issues for the purpose of provoking me, you are clearly now just trolling. Unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Colin. I'm really sorry, Basile, it seems like I've been less than supportive of a lot of your photos recently, and I don't much like doing so as they are always of very high quality. The vast majority of your nominations here are FP to me, and I don't agree about the sharpening/denoising artefacts either. But I do think that a glass atrium is supposed to be bright and airy, and a dull light really doesn't suit it. Honestly, I don't think the quality of the two pictures Colin suggests are at all bad given their high resolution, and I would probably support either for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For me this soft light shows well the interior design and highlights the colossal structure of the roof. I also like the beautiful sky through the glass and the window blinds being lit by the sun -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ... and you are right. Great composition and distribution of the lighter and darker parts, also very natural colours with a nice contrast between the yellowish blinds and the blue sky and blueish interior.--Chianti (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Impatiens pallida.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2019 at 02:28:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

These flowers hang from the stalks, cutting it is unavoidable. --СССР (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  Support, then -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment should be brighter IMO.--Ermell (talk) 06:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Not that I'm totally against brightening it, but why do you think so? It was taken with a flash from what was very close to the lens' minimum focusing distance of 0.28m, which, I think, provided for more than adequate illumination. The background is dark because the plant grows on the floor of the forest with a very thick canopy. СССР (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I understand the circumstances, but I still find the shadows distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how do you not find the multiple shadows that are actually on the subject distracting here? --СССР (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Why is the photo only 6MP? -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It's cropped; the flower is only a couple of cm is size, and I couldn't get any closer to focus. --СССР (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but as Ermell I would prefer it slightly brighter --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The shadows are a bit annoying, but overall still good. Cmao20 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Due to the shadows--Boothsift 05:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above Poco2 10:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Chur in Graubünden (Zwitserland) 41.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2019 at 15:16:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture #Switzerland.
  •   Info The city Chur is the oldest settlement in Switzerland. This old street with the beautifully painted house is located in the Altstadt.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The lighting's not really that interesting, I'm afraid. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it the way it is. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support: the sky is unispiring, but the rest of the scene more than compensates for it --СССР (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Intimate image of a fight. The brightly colored facade tries to resist the gray sky, which seems to invade everything.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support An intimate portrait of an old house. Given the narrow streets and comparatively tall buildings, this scene is best when evenly lit. The sky could of course be more interesting, but it's par for the course. Twilight on a clear day would really be the best time for this shot, probably. -- King of ♠ 19:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I’m on the "too dull" side. Can’t be too hard to re-take this in better lighting (maybe at a higher resolution and containing less noise), so I don’t see why this should be featured. Sorry if my wording is too harsh. --Kreuzschnabel 21:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --per Martin Falbisoner. Fischer.H (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 11:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it very much, and the sky doesn't bother me. Reminds me of this image by Poco. Cmao20 (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Martin --Boothsift 05:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Uninspiring sky, attractive facade. Compelling perspective effect with all the lines converging towards this red building, different from the others. Nice historical paintings at full resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Dull light. This is a clearly featurable motif, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do agree with Ikan Poco2 10:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)