Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder

FormalienEdit

NominierungEdit

Leitsätze für die NominierungEdit

Bitte lies alle Leitsätze (Englisch) vor der Nominierung.

Dies ist eine Zusammenfassung von Kriterien, auf die du bei der Einreichung und Bewertung von Exzellenz-Kandidaten achten solltest:

  • AuflösungFotografien mit einer Auflösung unter 2 Millionen Pixel werden in der Regel abgelehnt, außer unter „stark mildernden Umständen“. Beachte, dass ein 1600 x 1200 großes Foto 1,92 Megapixel hat und damit weniger als 2 Millionen.
Grafiken auf Commons können auch in anderen Weisen als zur Anzeige auf einen herkömmlichen Computerbildschirm verwendet werden. Sie können auch als Ausdruck oder zur Anzeige auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen verwendet werden. Man kann nicht vorhersagen, welche Geräte in Zukunft Anwendung finden, deshalb ist es wichtig, dass die nominierten Bilder die höchstmögliche Auflösung haben.
  • Eingescannte Bilder – solange es keine offizielle Richtlinie gibt, findet man unter Help:Scannen für verschiedene Typen von Bildern Hinweise für die Vorbereitung, die hilfreich sein können.
  • Fokus – jedes wichtige Objekt im Bild sollte normalerweise scharf sein.
  • Vordergrund und Hintergrund – Objekte im Vorder- und Hintergrund können stören. Kontrolliere, ob etwas vor dem Motiv des Bildes wichtige Elemente verdeckt. Auch soll nichts im Hintergrund die Komposition verderben, zum Beispiel eine Straßenlampe, die über dem Kopf einer abgebildeten Person „steht“.
  • Allgemeine Qualität – nominierte Bilder sollten von hoher technischer Qualität sein.
  • Digitale Manipulationen betrügen nicht in jedem Fall den Betrachter. Digitale Nachbearbeitungen, um Fehler von Fotografien zu korrigieren, sind allgemein akzeptiert, vorausgesetzt, sie sind begrenzt und gut gemacht, ohne dabei betrügen zu wollen. Akzeptiert werden normalerweise Beschneiden, perspektivische Korrekturen, Schärfen und Verwischen sowie Farb- und Belichtungskorrekturen. Umfangreichere Korrekturen wie das Entfernen von störenden Hintergrundobjekten sollten in der Bildbeschreibung mit Hilfe der Vorlage {{Retouched picture}} klar beschrieben werden. Nicht oder falsch beschriebenen Manipulationen, die dazu führen, dass das Hauptmotiv falsch dargestellt wird, sind unter keinen Umständen akzeptabel.
  • Wertunser Hauptziel ist das Hervorheben der wertvollsten Bilder von allen anderen. Bilder sollten irgendwie etwas Besonderes sein. Darum sei dir bewusst, dass:
    • nahezu jeder Sonnenuntergang ästhetisch ansprechend ist und die meisten keinen wesentlichen Unterschied aufweisen zu anderen,
    • Nachtaufnahmen hübsch sind, aber dass man normalerweise mit Aufnahmen bei Tag mehr Details zeigen kann,
    • schön nicht immer wertvoll bedeuten muss.

Auf der fachlichen Seite gibt es die Belichtung, die Komposition, die Bewegungskontrolle und die Fokustiefe zu beachten.

  • Belichtung bezieht sich auf die Verschluss-Blende-Kombination, die ein Bild mit einer Tonkurve wiedergibt. Idealerweise bildet diese Tonkurve in akzeptabler Genauigkeit Schatten- und Spitzlichtbereiche im Bild ab. Dies nennt man „Belichtungsspielraum“. Bilder können im niedrigen Teil der Tonkurve (unterer Bereich), im mittleren (mittlerer Bereich) oder hohen Teil (oberer Bereich) liegen. Digitale Kameras (oder Bilder) haben einen engeren Belichtungsspielraum als Fotofilme. Fehlende Genauigkeit im Schattenbereich ist nicht unbedingt ein Nachteil. Tatsächlich kann dies ein gewünschter Effekt sein. Eingebrannte Spitzenlichter sind dagegen ein störendes Element.
  • Komposition bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Elemente im Bild selbst. Die „Drittel-Regel“ ist ein guter Grundsatz für die Komposition und ein Erbe der Gemäldemalerei. Die Idee ist, das Bild mit jeweils zwei horizontalen und zwei vertikalen Linien zu teilen. Dadurch wird das Bild in horizontale und vertikale Drittel geteilt. Das Motiv im Zentrum des Bildes zu platzieren, ist oft weniger interessant, als es auf einem der vier Schnittpunkte der horizontalen und vertikalen Schnittlinien zu platzieren. Der Horizont sollte eigentlich niemals in der Mitte des Bildes liegen, wo er das Bild in zwei Hälften „teilt“. Die obere oder untere horizontale Linie ist oft eine gute Wahl. Der Hauptgedanke ist, den Raum zu nutzen, um ein dynamisches Bild zu schaffen.
  • Bewegungskontrolle bezieht sich auf die Weise, wie die Bewegung im Bild abgebildet wird. Die Bewegung kann stillstehend oder verschwommen sein. Weder das eine noch das andere ist besser; es kommt auf den Zweck der Aufnahme an. Bewegung ist relativ innerhalb der Objekte des Bildes. Zum Beispiel vermittelt uns das Fotografieren eines relativ zum Hintergrund stillstehenden Rennwagens kein Gefühl für das Tempo oder die Bewegung. Also zwingt uns die Fototechnik, das Motiv stillstehend vor verschwommenem Hintergrund abzubilden, wodurch ein Gefühl für die Bewegung entsteht. Dies nennt man „Schwenken“. Andererseits kann eine Aufnahme eines im Vergleich zur Umgebung stillstehenden Basketballspielers während eines hohen Sprunges das „Unnatürliche“ der Natur dieser Pose sichtbar machen.
  • Fokustiefe (DOF – Depth Of Field) bezieht sich auf den Fokusbereich vor und hinter dem Hauptmotiv. Die Fokustiefe wird abhängig von den spezifischen Erfordernissen jedes Bildes gewählt. Große oder kleine Fokustiefe kann auf die eine oder andere Weise die Qualität der Aufnahme vergrößern oder schmälern. Geringe Fokustiefe kann die Aufmerksamkeit auf das Hauptmotiv des Bildes lenken, das Hauptmotiv erscheint dadurch von seiner Umgebung gelöst. Hohe Fokustiefe bringt Abstände zwischen Motiven zur Geltung. Objektive mit kurzer Brennweite (Weitwinkel) ergeben eine hohe Fokustiefe, umgekehrt haben Objektive mit langer Brennweite (Teleobjektive) eine flache Fokustiefe. Kleine Blendenöffnungen bringen große Fokustiefe, und umgekehrt große Blendenöffnungen bringen flache Fokustiefen.

Bei den grafischen Elementen gibt es Form, Volumen, Farbe, Struktur, Perspektive, Balance, Proportion, usw.

  • Form bezieht sich auf den Umriss des Hauptmotivs.
  • Volumen bezieht sich die dreidimensionale Qualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenlicht herausgebildet. Im Gegenteil zum allgemeinen Glauben ist Frontbeleuchtung nicht die beste Wahl. Frontbeleuchtung lässt das Motiv abflachen. Das beste Tageslicht hat man am frühen Morgen oder nachmittags.
  • Farbe ist wichtig. Übersättigte Farben sind nicht gut.
  • Struktur bezieht sich auf die Oberflächenqualität des Motivs. Diese wird durch Seitenbeleuchtung verbessert.
  • Perspektive bezieht sich auf den „Grad“ zusammen mit Linien, die in einen Fluchtpunkt innerhalb oder außerhalb des Bildes enden.
  • Balance bezieht sich auf die Anordnung der Motive innerhalb des Bildes, die entweder das scheinbar gleiche Gewicht haben oder schwerer auf einer Seite erscheinen.
  • Proportion bezieht sich auf die Größenunterschiede der Objekte im Bild. Normalerweise tendieren wir dazu, kleine Gegenstände klein im Vergleich zu anderen darzustellen. Eine gute Methode kann aber sein, kleine Objekte groß im Gegensatz zu wirklichen Größenverhältnissen abzubilden. Zum Beispiel: Eine kleine Blume überwiegt gegenüber einem großen Berg. Dies nennt man Maßstabsinversion.
Nicht alle Elemente müssen berücksichtigt werden. Einige Fotografien können anhand individueller Eigenschaften beurteilt werden. Für ein Bild kann die Farbe oder die Struktur wichtig sein, oder Farbe und Strukur, usw.
  • Symbolische Aussage oder Relevanz…. Der Meinungskrieg kann hier beginnen…. Ein schlechtes Bild von einem sehr schwierigen Motiv ist ein besseres Bild als ein gutes Bild von einem gewöhnlichen Motiv. Ein gutes Bild von einem schwierigen Motiv ist ein außergewöhnliches Foto.
Bilder können kulturell beeinflusst sein durch den Fotografen und/oder den Betrachter. Die Bedeutung des Bildes sollte vor dem kulturellen Hintergrund des Bildes beurteilt werden, nicht durch den kulturellen Hintergrund des Betrachters. Ein Bild „spricht“ zu Menschen und hat die Möglichkeit, Emotionen auszulösen, wie zum Beispiel Zärtlichkeit, Zorn, Ablehnung, Heiterkeit, Traurigkeit usw. Gute Fotografen sind nicht darauf beschränkt, gefällige Emotionen zu provozieren.

Um die Chancen für einen Erfolg deiner Nominierung zu erhöhen, lies vor der Nominierung alle Leitsätze.

Eine neue Nominierung aufstellenEdit

Wenn du glaubst, ein Bild mit passender Bildbeschreibung und Lizenz gefunden oder geschaffen zu haben, das als wertvoll erachtet werden könnte, folge der anschließenden Anleitung.

Schritt 1: Kopiere den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:), hinter den schon im Feld stehenden Text, zum Beispiel „Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG“. Danach klicke auf die Schaltfäche mit der Aufschrift „neue Nominierung aufstellen“.


Schritt 2: Folge den Anweisungen der geöffneten Seite, und sichere sie.

Schritt 3: Füge manuell einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Kandidatenliste ein: Hier klicken, und füge folgende Zeile OBEN bei der Nominierungslist ein:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:DEIN-BILD-DATEINAME.JPG}}

AbstimmungEdit

Du kannst folgende Vorlagen benutzen:

  • {{Support}} (  Support) (Stimme zur Unterstützung des Exzellenz-Status'),
  • {{Oppose}} (  Oppose) (Stimme gegen den Exzellenz-Status),
  • {{Neutral}} (  Neutral) (neutrale Meinung, keine Stimme),
  • {{Comment}} (  Comment) (es folgt ein Kommentar, keine Stimme),
  • {{Info}} (  Info) (es folgen Informationen, keine Stimme),
  • {{Question}} (  Question) (es folgt eine Frage, keine Stimme)

Du kannst angeben, dass das Bild keine Chance für eine erfogreiche Kandidatur hat. Benutze die Vorlage {{FPX|reason}}, wobei reason angibt, warum das nominierte Bild klar unakzeptabel für die exzellenten Bilder ist.

Weitere Vorlagen gibt es hier.

Bitte füge ein paar Worte an, warum dir das Bild gefällt oder nicht gefällt, insbesondere wenn du dagegen stimmst. Bitte denke auch daran, zu unterschreiben (~~~~). Anonyme Stimmen sind nicht zugelassen.

Abwahlkandidaten der exzellenten Bilder aufstellenEdit

Mit der Zeit ändern sich die Standards für die Exzellenten Bilder. Es kann entschieden werden, dass Bilder, die vorher „gut genug“ für die Exzellenten waren, es nicht mehr sind. Dies ist zum Aufstellen eines Bildes, welches deiner Meinung nach es nicht mehr verdient, exzellent zu sein. Dazu wähle mit

  • {{Keep}}   Keep (das Bild verdient es immer noch, als exzellent zu gelten) oder mit
  • {{Delist}}   Delist (das Bild verdient es nicht mehr, als exzellent zu gelten).

Wenn du denkst, dass ein Bild nicht mehr den Exzellenz-Kriterien entspricht, kannst du es für die Abwahl nominieren, indem du den Bildnamen in dieses Textfeld (einschließlich des Zusatzes Image:) hinter den bereits stehenden Text im Feld kopierst:


In der eben erstellten neuen Seite für die Nomination des Abwahlkandidaten solltest du einfügen:

  • Informationen über den Ursprung des Bildes (Ersteller, Uploader),
  • Einen Link zur originalen Exzellenz-Kandidatur-Seite (es erscheint unter „Links“ auf der Beschreibungsseite),
  • Deine Begründung für die Nominierung und dein Benutzername.

Danach musst du einen Link zu der erstellten Seite oben auf der Seite mit der Liste der Abwahlkandidaten manuell einfügen.

Richtlinien für Exzellenz-KandidatenEdit

Allgemeine RegelnEdit

  1. Nach dem Ende des Abstimmungs-Zeitraumes wird das Ergebnis am Tag 10 nach der Nominierung festgestellt (im Zeitplan weiter unten gezeigt). Also dauert der Abstimmungs-Zeitraum 9 Tage, plus die Stunden bis zum Ende von Tag 9. Stimmen, die an Tag 10 oder danach abgeben wurden, werden nicht gezählt.
  2. Nominierungen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
  3. Mitwirken bei Diskussionen von anonymen Mitwirkenden sind erwünscht.
  4. Nur Nutzer mit einem commons-account, der mindestens 10 Tage alt ist und 50 Beiträge hat, können wählen. Ausnahme: Die eigene Nominierung kann gewählt werden, unabhängig von Alter und Beiträge.
  5. Die Nominierung zählt nicht als Stimme. Unterstützung muss explizit angegeben werden.
  6. Nominierungen können vom Einsteller jederzeit zurückgezogen werden. Dies geschieht einfach durch das Schreiben von „I withdraw my nomination“ (eng. Ich ziehe meine Nominierung zurück)
    oder durch Hinzufügen von {{withdraw|~~~~}}.
  7. Denke daran, das Ziel von Wikimedia Commons ist es, einen zentralen Speicher für freie Bilder, genutzt von allen Wikimedia-Projekten, bereitzustellen, einschließlich für mögliche zukünftige Projekte. Dies ist nicht einfach ein Speicher für Wikipedia-Bilder, deshalb sollten hier die Bilder nicht danach beurteilt werden, ob sie zu diesem Projekt passen.
  8. Bilder können vorzeitig am Tag 5 (fünfter Tag nach der Nominierung) von der Abstimmungsliste genommen werden („Regel des 5. Tages“):
    1. Wenn sie keine Unterstützung erhalten, die Einsteller nicht mitgezählt.
    2. Wenn sie 10 oder mehr Pro und kein Kontra erhalten haben.
  9. Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPX}} markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden, vorausgesetzt, das Bild hat außer von den Einstellern keine positiven Stimmen (Unterstützung) erhalten.
  10. Bilder, welche durch die Vorlage {{FPD}} (FP denied) markiert wurden, können 48 Stunden, nachdem die Vorlage gesetzt wurde, von der Liste entfernt werden.
  11. Es dürfen von einem Benutzer maximal 2 Nominierungen gleichzeitig platziert werden.

Regeln zur Wahl und AbwahlEdit

Ein Kandidat wird in die Galerie der exzellenten Bilder aufgenommen, wenn folgende Bedingungen erfüllt sind:

  1. Passende Lizenz (selbstverständlich)
  2. Mindestens 7 positive Stimmen (Pro-Stimmen)
  3. Das Verhältnis von unterstützenden zu ablehnenden Stimmen ist mindestens 2/1 (eine Zwei-Drittel-Mehrheit)
  4. Zwei verschiedene Versionen desselben Bildes können nicht beide exzellent werden, sondern nur das mit der höheren Zahl an Stimmen.

Die Abwahl-Regeln sind dieselben wie zur Wahl der exzellenten Bilder bei gleichbleibenden Abstimmungs-Zeitraum. Die Regel des 5. Tages gilt für Abwahlkandidaten, die keine Stimme für die Aberkennung des Exzellenz-Status' bis zum Tag 5 erhalten haben, außer die des Antragstellers.

Ein erfahrener Nutzer kann die Anfrage beenden. Wie man eine Anfrage beendet, siehe unter Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder/Was tun, wenn der Abstimmungszeitraum zu Ende ist.

Vor allem sei freundlichEdit

Bitte bedenke, dass das Bild, das du beurteilst, das wohlüberlegte Werk von jemandem ist. Vermeide Phrasen wie „it looks terrible“ (eng. sieht schrecklich aus) oder „I hate it“ (eng. Ich hasse es). Wenn du dagegen Stellung nehmen musst, tu dies bitte mit Rücksichtnahme. Bedenke außerdem, dass deine Englischkenntnisse nicht die gleichen sein müssen wie die eines anderen. Wähle deine Worte sorgfältig.

Viel Spaß beim Bewerten …, und denke daran: Alle Regeln können gebrochen werden.

Siehe auchEdit


InhaltsübersichtEdit

Exzellenz-KandidatenEdit

Seite erneut laden für neue Nominierungen: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Karlstad Stonebridge.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 09:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Iguana marina (Amblyrhynchus cristatus), isla Lobos, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-25, DD 47.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 09:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •   Info Exemplar of a juvenile marine iguana (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) laying on a rock in the coast of Lobos Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. All by me, Poco2 09:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 09:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support One of those rare occasions when tone-in-tone camouflage colors works for the photo. It looks like some mini-gargoyle posing for a stone carving on Notre-Dame de Paris. (Though I wouldn't mind if that bright, distracting glint or whatever above its tail was removed.) --cart-Talk 10:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Kloster Banz vom Staffelberg 270136-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 07:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bajorelieve1-monumentoaSanMartinMDP.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 02:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kop Blokslootpolder (Bloksleatpolder) 22.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2018 at 16:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Alnus incana var. tenuifolia in flower.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2018 at 04:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  •   Info created by ThayneT - uploaded by ThayneT - nominated by ThayneT -- ThayneT (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ThayneT (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the compositon with these three layers but IMO the first layer isn't sharp enough. The lighting could be more interesting, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm very sorry, but I agree with Basotxerri: a pleasant composition, but the lack of sharpness on the first layer is a serious issue. --Sputniktilt (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment BTW, please add the FPC category. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri. Daniel Case (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Thylacodes colubrinus 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 16:50:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Hallstatt kath. Kirche Knappenaltar Kreuzigung 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 14:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
  •   Info Crucifixion of Christ at the central panel of the Knappenaltar (altar of the miners) at the catholic parish church Hallstatt, Upper Austria. Anonymous master, around 1450. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes to more paintings, but one   Question: is there a bit of barrel distortion? My eyes are telling me that the sides are curving a bit ...--Peulle (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: I checked the verticals of the frame and do not see any barrel distortion. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh well.   Support --Peulle (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Reagan sitting with people from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in February 1983.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 13:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1980-1990
  •   Info In the series of images depicting significant historical events, this image is captioned: President Reagan meeting with Afghan Freedom Fighters to discuss Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. 2/2/83. During the Soviet invasion, the US provided financial and military support to the mujahedin, in a covert operation managed by the CIA. While this support was classified, the moral support was public - as this image shows.
  • Created by a White House photographer (possibly Tim Clary) Michael Evans, as stamped on the contact sheet, uploaded by Scewing, nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- I have done a minor fix: straightened and perspektive correction. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Most of the source links are broken. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Juliancolton: I did a little searching on the net and some digging and found that most of the files have just been moved to the Reagan Library website. I have put the new links on the file's page. One pdf lists all the rolls of film taken by the White House photographers during 1983, complete with contact sheets and everything (frame 32). Pretty cool! So the name of the photographer is no longer a mystery (it's Michael Evans) and you can apparently order larger files from the library if you want. A fun thing is looking at the other photos in this roll plus the one before and after so you get coverage of the whole event. This looks like a good site to visit to sort things out about photos from that era. --cart-Talk 23:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Historically significant. It seems like a hundred years ago that right-wingers and Evangelicals in the U.S. thought jihadists were righteous "freedom fighters", and of course they were fighting Soviet, rather than American occupation in those days. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose historically significant moment perhaps, and possibly high enough EV for FP on Wikipedia, but for me the EV doesn't carry it far enough. the capture seems rather unremarkable aside from just being in the room. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While hunting for sources for this photos, I've gone over it in by head and now I find that Rhododendrites has expressed my view rather eloquently. Sorry. --cart-Talk 12:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - agree that it has EV and would be a good candidate for en.WP but it doesn't quite meet the FP requirements here. Atsme 📞 16:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Momordica charantia - Kudret narı, Adana 2017-11-19 02-1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 11:42:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Car radio antenna on Mazda 323 compacted.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 10:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • For me, it adds a depth to the picture having a light side and a dark side, divided by the antenna. Having all of it evenly lit would have been boring and not given the image enough contrast. --cart-Talk 11:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I do not mind the darkness. I like the idea that is well executed. --Pugilist (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support these crystals with their dense texture. A macro lens would have made it gorgeous, but the quality is okay -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Creative!! Love the definition of the crystals. Atsme 📞 16:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer a little bit lighter. But a resourceful choice.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Battlefield in Tovačov - monument 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 09:58:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info allby Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Is this really the best angle for depicting the monument? At first glance, I thought it was an unkept, abandoned monument with plants and bushes growing from it. Light, symmetry and quality are otherwise very good. --cart-Talk 10:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    In my opinion this angle is the best --Pudelek (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even without the unfortunate "tree growing out of the monument" illusion, this is just a QI. What is "wow" about it? -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Good picture but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. The tree hidden behind spoils the subject -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I actually don't mind the tree—it sort of suggests rebirth to me, perfectly in keeping with the monument However, the trees at the side are distorted and unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Green crab traps with white buoys.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 06:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by WClarke - uploaded by WClarke - nominated by WClarke -- WClarke 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WClarke 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Too many blurry bars and other blurry things, uncomfortable to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Very arty, looks like the moon trapped. Unusual, intriguing and different. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Since I like odd, arty photos I wanted to get mesmerized by this but unfortunately that didn't happen. The lines are too many and too chaotic. The overcast light doesn't help as it makes all surfaces flat. Sorry. --cart-Talk 12:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Cochlospermum regium (yellow cotton tree) flower.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 04:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • The mantis is maybe not essential but IMO gives an interesting indication on the size of the flower -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The off-center stem, if that's what that is in the background. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Nolan warthogs (Phacochoerus africanus africanus) juveniles drinking.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 14:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support. Nice and very good! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a strong tilt --Poco2 08:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done There was. Well spotted, thanks. Charles (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better and a nice one! Poco2 19:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! I'd like to see the other semi-finalists too. ;-) --cart-Talk 09:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I didn't get personality rights unfortunately!! Charles (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Rats... those copyright laws can be a real pain in the behind. --cart-Talk 10:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Turgot map of Paris, Kyoto University Library (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 12:08:54

Delist
       
       
       
       
       
Replace
Sectional maps


  •   Info (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question I'm a little confused here. Is the proposal here that we delist one sectional map and replace it with one sectional map plus two one-file maps? --cart-Talk 12:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • W.carter, that's why the new set is better. --Paris 16 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You're proposing to delist a single file in favor of a set? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You aren't showing an old set, only a single currently featured file that you want replaced with a set. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The old set is above.--Paris 16 (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info @Ikan Kekek:, @Daniel Case: and anyone else interested. The whole sets are displayed above. The twenty images that each of the sets consists of are just displayed in a grid of thumbs instead of one after the other, so they make up what looks like one single "picture" in the nomination. Depending on which square you click on in the "picture", you will be directed to a different file. If you open the editing window, you can see the name of each file listed. This nom is about replacing the 20 files of the original set with a new set of 20 files + two new files: one file that is all of the set images put together in a single file and one file that is a simplified version of that "merged" file with just the streets and major features and not all the little houses drawn. --cart-Talk 08:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see. Thanks for explaining. The proposed substitution is better, even without considering the two additional files.   Delist and replace . Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --cart-Talk 09:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank W.carter!--Paris 16 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace I'm in favour, having examined the maps in some detail. I love maps. I noticed a bit of a colour stain left of Rue d'Antin and below R. de Bourgogne - they should see to that. --Peulle (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace 22:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The above signature is apparently Daniel's. --cart-Talk 00:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It is. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:2016 Kwiat grzybieni białych 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 11:48:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While it is better than File:Nymphaea alba in Duisburg.jpg it is not as good as File:Adarga (Nymphaea alba), Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 01.jpg, which has a more interesting angle than "point camera down at flower and press button". All flowers are pretty, so I think it requires some composition cleverness and excellent technique to get FP. Here the flowers are bright sunlit so detail is lost. The surrounding leaves, which aren't very photogenic here, are sharp and a bit distracting. -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. Though I do almost feel like I can smell the flower looking at the image in closeup. Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I sort of like all the different kinds of bugs you can see when zoomed all the way in. It was enough to hold my interest. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Julian. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Contrary to Colin, I think that "point and click" photos can sometimes work, but then the conditions need to perfect. You need better light than this to get the structure of the flower, the surroundings and background needs to be good; here the leaves have seen better days and there are intrusive shadows (stems, stalks?) crossing the top of the photo. Unlike Daniel, I don't imagine smelling the flower here only the stagnant water. --cart-Talk 12:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Black-veined white (Aporia crataegi) male underside.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 10:56:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Locatie, Sauerland Duitsland. Eikenblad met rijp.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 06:46:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Young vendor in a grocery store in Don Som.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 04:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Nice photo but dull light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is a good documentary photo and I like the fact that you can see an adult watching over him in the background, but like Ikan said, the light is dull and also I'm not a fan of top-down angle when photographing children. Taking the photo at his level would have been better. Sorry. --cart-Talk 09:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The above comments are fair. From the distance I was to take this picture (and this is a crop), it was difficult to place my camera lower to respect the perspectives of the building. I think the dull light is more visible on the top and on the right of the image. Thus, I try the alternative version below taken from a lower and closer viewpoint. Despite the new 16:9 format, this image is larger in size (24,2 MPix vs 19,3 Mpix). The adult behind has disappeared but the boy is smiling -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I like that the whole shop is on display (that's encyclopedic), a version with a smiler would be better. . --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This is better. He has that cheeky "this is mine, deal with it" smile and look. In this photo, he is in charge and he is not some "poor timid" child you look down upon. --cart-Talk 12:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart, although I think a little more cropping in on the sides would help. Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like above version, but shallow DOF, so to show store isnt good, its more like portrait by store. We still need some social shots, so i support.--Mile (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The shop is the real star here and its cropped out. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Alnus incana var. tenuifolia 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 23:52:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info created by ThayneT - uploaded by ThayneT - nominated by ThayneT -- ThayneT (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ThayneT (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A little unsharp, and not really interesting enough for FP IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    •   CommentUninteresting? That is typically what people think of plants, however this species on of the dominant native species throughout the western US along every single river and waterway, and is also currently in bloom. I think it is rather exciting because it means that spring is really coming, and a very appropriate photo for this time of year. ThayneT (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The burred background is too dominant in the image -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment The blurred background is the only reason you can actually see the subject instead of all the things in the background. This is called isolating your subject from the background by using a wide open aperture- often necessary when taking plant photos unlike in landscape photography where you are trying to get tack sharp focus front to back. ThayneT (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we all understand the concept of bokeh and reasons for using it here (I didn't at first, but I do now, and I think everyone else does). That's not the point. The point is that the background, although blurred, still distracts the viewer too much from the catkins. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I definitely think the catkins are an interesting enough subject, but I agree with Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Castillo de Montuenga, Montuenga de Soria, Soria, España, 2017-05-23, DD 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 21:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info Remains of the casle of Montuenga, a fortification of the 11th century located in Montuenga de Soria, Province of Soria, Spain. All by me, 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - the power transmission line is a bit distracting, but very impressive otherwise. --СССР (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very clean lines, but I would crop the right side further in - probably just a bit to the right of the pylon, but I think you could obviate complaints about it by cropping to its left, and that'll still look good and IMO better than the current crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan: I played around with the crop but I came to the conclusion that it's ok like this. Cropping the right side would break the golden ratio and the castle would be almost centered. Poco2 18:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't look almost centered (not that I think there's any inherent problem with that) because of the slope on the left. I will remain   Neutral, I think, because there's a certain austere character to the photo as it is, but I haven't changed my mind that a good crop would improve the composition quite substantially. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support awesome. Any chance to clone out the power lines & pylon? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, this evening will definitely clone that out and think about the crop --Poco2 07:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    @СССР, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner:   Done I've cloned out the power post and lines. --Poco2 18:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose vibrance, staruation is above my taste. --Mile (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Stray German Shepherd Dog.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 18:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:View through the shattered glass of a door in the SNCB B22490 type-K3 carriage, looking at a yellow H. Weyhausen KG backhoe loader in As, Belgium (DSCF3088-hdr).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2018 at 14:36:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment I like how the door frame (black rubber and metal edge) "naturally" frames the broken window view, I would much rather keep it that way so I will hold off on cropping unless the consensus is that it's required for FP. --Trougnouf (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support very interesting imo. I'd also crop the black frame --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose for now. It's a new and fresh, interesting motif but the image is dark and dull, the post-processing could be better with some more light and contrast since it is an artistic photo rather than a documentary one. --cart-Talk 08:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I increased the exposure (as well as a few other adjustment on the sharpness and white balance), is it bright enough? --Trougnouf (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Now it is crackin'! Pardon the pun... ;) --cart-Talk 12:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Momotxorroen irteera, Altsasu 2018.webmEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2018 at 23:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
  •   Info created by Theklan - uploaded by Theklan - nominated by Theklan -- Theklan (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Theklan (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - That's quite interesting, but there's no documentation or even title at the beginning of the clip to explain what I react to as something like a bizarro Halloween parade, and some of the camera work is jerky, as is the sudden ending. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Documentation on the clip? In what language? It includes a description in the file, inserting texts in a video is not a good option. -Theklan (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No texts or explanations, shaky camera, cuts/scene changes abrupt and jerky. Sorry, this is not one of the finest videos on Commons. --cart-Talk 10:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Texts or explanations can't be in the video, as Commons is a multilanguage project. -Theklan (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Theklan: Yes, it's a multilanguage project and that means that all languages are accepted, not the other way around that no language is ok. The best way is to have the texts in some major language, such as Spanish like in this FP video. In this one the texts are in English and in this you got both Spanish and English. If the clip is short and just shows one specific thing like this, there is no need for texts since it has a good description linked to Wikipedia articles. Your video didn't even have that, I added that to the file's description. Your video is like a small documentary and for those it is best to have some kind of text explain what's going on, like it's done in this one. For your film you could have made something like this (but in Spanish): "Momotxorro" /cut/ "at the Carnival of Alsasua" /cut/ --film-- /cut/ "Each year at the carnival" /cut/ "people dress up as Momotxorro" /cut/ "an imaginary being, half man and half bull" /cut/ --film-- /cut/ "Film by Theklan" /cut/ "Filmed in Basque Country 2018". If you are making a video for FPC, it is always best to have a look at the vidoes that are FP already. --cart-Talk 09:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Theklan: They can't be in the video inline, yes, but the TimedText layer exists for that reason. It would be most helpful here. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have one simple question: wtf? O.k., then per W.Carter. --Granada (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Granada, that is not a constructive, civilized or legit reason for an oppose. Please refrain from using simple quips as rationell and leave a real review even if it's just a "per XXX". Think about how you yourself would react if you got such a vote. --cart-Talk 11:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan's well-argued review.--Peulle (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If the idea is to document the effects of taking certain hallucinogens, or the sort of psychedelic hallucinatory sequence that some filmmakers are enamored of including, maybe it's featurable. But if the point is to document this parade, without any explanation otherwise, then even without the slowed-down voices and water droplets on the lens, it doesn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too slow. Boring -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Landscape in Peyriac-de-Mer, february 2018 (05).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2018 at 17:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Remarkable. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Great -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 07:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --BeckenhamBear (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 21:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I don't really get it. It's a good photo for sure, with nice light, rather peaceful, but the sky and water are a little too static for me to consider it a great composition. I have at no point been tempted to oppose this photo, but I also haven't found a reason to support, and I feel like I may have missed something that's causing some of you to find this a truly exceptional photo. So if anyone would like to tell me what they are seeing, I might learn something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: you're probably Neutral :-) But to tell you what I appreciate here, subjectively, it is the nice mirror effect of that contrasted bridge in the water, and the invitation to follow the path like on a marked road, without handrails. Mysteriously, why is this footbridge here and where does it lead to ? Invitation to walk along -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I get that. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - sweet!! Atsme 📞 16:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 08:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

File:MosMetro Krasnopresnenskaya asv2018-01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2018 at 14:47:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Eclipse and Super blue blood moon 31.01.2018 DSCN9664.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2018 at 07:22:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:McGinnis Lake panorama1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2018 at 00:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Veteran at Belgian National Day. Brussels, 2012.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2018 at 12:27:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Ввласенко - uploaded by Ввласенко - nominated by -- Ввласенко (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Do you have his permission? Intrusive photo. Charles (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Charles: I would be inclined to say that consent is not a requirement in this situation under law, at least according to the photo consent guidelines for Belgium, which states that "consent is also implied or not needed for depicting people related to news events of public interest." It was taken with a telephoto lens, I assume from a fair distance away, and the subject appears to be completely unaware of the photo, but even then I still think it doesn't constitute a breach in Wikipedia's guidelines, and therefore its eligibility for FP. WClarke 03:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info I have no formal permission. The photo was taken during a public event where photos, videos and TV were produced. The participants of the event knew about this and had no objections. In my opinion, this means а tacit consent (а tacit permission). -- Ввласенко (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree with WClarke's interpretation of Belgian law and also take issue with Ввласенко's comment 'The participants of the event knew about this and had no objections'. Would you want a close-up picture of you grieving over lost friends being plastered over Wikipedia? No you wouldn't. Please show respect to the War Veteran and remove this nomination. Charles (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't really see a problem here. This is a public figure taken in a public place during a public event. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  Comment How is he a "public figure"? There is a difference between this and being a private individual in a public place. The focus of this image is clearly not the event, but the person, so unless he has given consent to being individually photographed (rather than having photos taken of many people where he is one of them), I see an issue with privacy here.--Peulle (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I could be mistaken, but I think soldiers in some sort of uniform, as well as other public servants/officials in uniform, count as public figures. In US military at least, the beret is considered a distinctive part of the uniform, signaling that you are considered an active or veteran military. [1], [2]. There is also this from the UK. And nobody complained about privacy issues in this soldier nom. --cart-Talk 16:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose He is not a public figure. He is not in uniform. He is not a soldier. This is not the USA. Charles (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  Comment He is a former soldier, standing in the ranks of the same former soldiers, in military headgear and with awards on the chest, and in a few minutes they will solemnly pass through the square in front of the Palais de Bruxelles. They will be greeted by the King, Government, a large number of guests and spectators. Be sure that on this day the veterans are very public figures. -- Ввласенко (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Exactly. I was going to say that, and you express it even better. Charles: You are playing on words... Regards, Yann (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I do not think there are any legitimate legal issues with this. IMO, it's a great portrait. The man's expression says a lot with a little. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • His expression does say a lot Daniel, but it's none of our business. Charles (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Per COM:IDENT#Belgium: "Consent is also implied or not needed for depicting people related to news events of public interest, and when a person is incidentally shown in a photograph depicting some public location or event." Game, set and match as far as we all should be concerned.

I mean, really, Charles, some day PETA or some such successor organization will start arguing for all your wildlife images to be defeatured and deleted because there's no evidence you got the animal's consent, or that it's humiliating and degrading for the animal to be photographed unknowingly in the middle of a public wilderness in what it thought was going to be a private moment for it to have some emotional catharsis. Do you really want to follow this to its logical conclusion? Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please don't interrupt this otherwise interesting exchange with reductio ad absurdum arguments - personality rights is a real thing that should be discussed from time to time when specific cases pop up. In this case, I want to point out something you got wrong in your "game, set, match" analysis. The word "incidentally" is critical in the sentence you quoted. It does not apply to this image, since the man is not "incidentally" depicted in the photo as part of a larger setting, rather he is the main subject of the photo. There is a difference between being the only thing shown in a photo and being depicted as standing in the background as part of scene with lots of people and things going on around. In this case, we have a photo specifically taken of one person, not a photo of a big event with that person being incidentally included.--Peulle (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Peulle: Reductio it may be, but not ab absurdum ... do remember that PETA did file suit against the photographer who claims copyright over the monkey selfie, on the grounds that the macaque was entitled to it. In any event, you are making a purely moral case for this image as non-featurable, not a legal one. You and Charles are entitled to your opinion. But I would suggest that in the future you do what I do when people nominate cosplay images or lighting-display images where I do not believe local FoP covers it: just !vote oppose, state your reasons, and don't engage anyone else unless they engage you directly over this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel. --cart-Talk 17:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Great portrait, although I would have like a bit more space around. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Being a veteran in uniform and participating in a public manifestation makes him a public figure. Zero expectation of privacy in public event. MZaplotnik(talk) 07:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'd like to support, as this is a good portrait. Can someone explain why anyone in public in Belgium would have the reasonable expectation not to be photographed? Of course I realize that a woman in Saudi Arabia would not expect to be photographed in public, so there is no universal rule on this and I don't want to inappropriately apply American standards to a Western European country, but is there really an expectation of not being photographed on the street in Belgium, especially at a highly visible public event? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The issue for me is the close up intrusion of grief being paraded here for soemone else's reward. I say again, what might the veteran and his friends think about this? Charles (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment As Charles says, the issue is not whether you should be able to avoid being photographed completely when in a public space, but when a photographer makes you his sole subject, that's another thing. On the one hand, there are famous cases like Migrant Mother, on the other hand I'd like to have heard the person's view on the matter.--Peulle (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) You don't think that his showing up and being part of this event, parading in front of all the spectators ("the King, Government, a large number of guests and spectators"), is proof enough that he is honouring his comrades and their memory in a very public way? --cart-Talk 12:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the arguments. I don't think they really directly address my question (except cart's response), and they don't convince me.   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

  Support Good portrait of a solemn veteran in uniform -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Comment Very good of its type. However, I don't see it as an FP. The public is bombarded worldwide with similar. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Frutillar-Theatro-del-Lago-1030906-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2018 at 08:17:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

all by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I   Support this photo. I wasn't sure whether to nominate it because I fear people may object to the crop of the building. However, painters routinely make such crops. I love this composition, and the stripes on the building are a big part of it but so are the lake, the snow-capped volcano in the distance and the streaming clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm on the other side; the composition isn't bad but leaves something to be desired. NR also seems excessive.--Peulle (talk) 10:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
    Agree with Peulle, there is no detail, --Poco2 19:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Peulle. The cloud at left and the distant mountain in particular seem to suffer from whatever processing decisions were made. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. I don't know what another crop would have given, but this works due to the mountains in the distance, cropped and shaped similarly. Nice colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support good composition, nature-/culture-balance --Neptuul (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Love it. Very nice framing! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:10, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Elderly refugee portrait captured in Khazer frontline camp. Northern Iraq, Western Asia-2. 10 November, 2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2018 at 10:47:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:20180126 FIS NC WC Seefeld 850 1484.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2018 at 08:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Renomination according to this discussion about PumpkinSky and HalfGig. Also took some of the hints in the original discussion for granted and cropped out the top of the mountain to the far left of the image so more of the skiers is visible and they also move a bit towards the center. -- Granada (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The same as my former vote. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Like I said before. --cart-Talk 09:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support--MZaplotnik(talk) 09:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Benh (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 10:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose like last time.--Peulle (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The skiers are nice but the background at this degree of blur gives me a headache. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Isiwal (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As before. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KTC (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice composition! Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The blurred mountains are too dominant in the image -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Super moon over City of London from Tate Modern 2018-01-31 6.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2018 at 19:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Natural satellites
  •   Info As requested, this is the supermoon playing peekaboo with the Walkie-Talkie. I like to think that somone one that floor is looking out their window at an enormous moon. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Ah!! Yes, yes, yes! Reason given in a previous nom. This can be seen two ways: Like the moon is playing peekaboo with the population in some kind of crazy Duckburg city, OR "there is something super big breaking the surface and coming up behind you!". Btw, I was surprised to find that the Moon doesn't have its own FP category like the Sun has. "Natural satellites"... tsk, tsk, mumble, mumble... --cart-Talk 19:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 21:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Stepro (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I find this composition much more interesting than the other picture. I love how the Walkie-Talkie continues to get wider as it goes up; excellent crop, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Brilliant. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very creative. Wow there is. --A.Savin 07:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support peekaboo! :) --Peulle (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Great wow factor. But wait - hasn't the moon to appear in front of the clouds according to Peter Lik? ;-) --Granada (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support of course! —Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This doesn't work with the moon this small. I guess 600mm would be the lowest I try to shoot this with. - Benh (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC) - Benh (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I realised, as soon as I reached the viewing area on top of the Tate Modern, that I was way too close to the buildings to make much use of the 500mm, and the security guards were absolutely not letting me get my tripod out. -- Colin (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      • @Colin: I'm afraid that wouldn't have changed anything if you've remained on same spot. You'd have only gained resolution. - Benh (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
        • OK to be more specific: you'd have gotten a crop of this, but with more resolution. - Benh (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Benh, yes, that's what's I meant by the first half of the sentence. The limited scope to move about, compared to being on the bank of the Thames, also meant I couldn't change the viewing angle. However, I'm happy to have got some shots of the city & moon, and people seem to like this fairly-large moon image. The enormous moon photos are fun, and certainly something to try, but also not very realistic and I do wonder if any are sharp/detailed enough to please FPC. -- Colin (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
            • If it doesn't please FPC, it would mean it's different, original and... fun :) and am very curious if you could get such a shot. I think it is no less realistic that any shot here. Just a different, non boring point of view that you get by cleverly choosing ur shooting point and time. And for some reason, when the moon rises (or sets) near the horizon, it looks quite big to me. So that would catch that feeling just about right I think. - Benh (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
              • Benh, you are referring to the Moon illusion. But even then, a 500mm lens on my camera is 750mm full-frame and like the page I linked produces scenes no eye can quite realise, which is why I say it isn't realistic, but in the same way as an extreme macro of a fly isn't realistic -- one can't see such scenes. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stunning but not perfect. The moon as an impotant element of this image seems to be overexposed. It´wouldn't be so difficult to paste a moon with a better exposure time. I don´t share the hype about the "supermoon" --Milseburg (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Paste a moon"? After this? If we suggest such things we're no better than Peter Lik. Exposure bracketing is one thing and it doesn't work here since the moon is moving too fast, but pasting sounds a bit too rich for me in a photo like this. --cart-Talk 11:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
If there are several elements in an image requiring a different exposure for a natural impression, it is not fake to compose these elements in a differentiated way. I´m sure that pure eyes got another impression here then presented. --Milseburg (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Milseburg, the moon wasn't over-exposed wrt brightness -- there was plenty headroom in the raw file and no clipping. A shorter exposure might be marginally sharper because the moon is moving and the atmosphere this close to the ground makes it especially wobbly. I have another with half the exposure time (though twice the iso) that is not sharper. You aren't really going to get a sharp image of the moon this close to the horizon and any moon you see that is sharp and near the horizon is a fake. Peter Lik's stupid image not only has clouds impossibly behind the moon, but has the moon super sharp and crisp -- something that can only be achieved on the clearest day with the moon high and by merging many dozens of frames and applying special sharpening techniques. And then of course upper-sky moon is the wrong colour and the wrong brightness for low-sky. The moon is the brightest element in this scene and I wanted to retain that, to have it glow on your monitor rather than looking like someone had stuck on a circular piece of paper. When one photographs the moon higher in the black sky, like File:Moon 2017-02-17 UK.jpg, one can arrange for it to be any brightness you like, though that is far less bright than it was to the eye. The moon close to the ground, in the blue hour, can be photographed with one exposure quite satisfactorily and realistically. Once it gets higher up, it is as bright as the daylight on sand, and that's when one has to play tricks like pasting in another exposure if you need to preserve the exposure on a dark land. -- Colin (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I don´t think that your moon is blown out, but i´ts too bright in my eyes. Structures on the lunar surface such as the lunar mare are slightly outshone and less recognizable than I know from observations with own eyes. This image some supermoons before over another capital city is showing the moon more detailed and naturaly, without beeing a fake. --Milseburg (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Passo Sella - Città dei Sassi - 13.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2018 at 15:24:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the composition doesn't work for me. I'm missing some clear subject, some lines or some guided view over the landscape. Instead, there are trees and rocks that give me more impression of obstacles. However, did I mention that indicating all these peaks and mountain saddles on your image is a really good job? --Basotxerri (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Might work for me with some crops in on both sides. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - The crop that looks really helpful to me would cut off about half the incline on the right. I think that would make the picture feature-worthy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think its the wrong time of day- too much overhead light, no real subject or foreground ThayneT (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Better than the alternative version. The alternative is claustrophobic in comparison. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 
Crop as suggested per Daniel Case and Ikan Kekek --Llez (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Maybe because you cropped the left so much, I think the right has to be cropped more. I'll try indicating a suggestion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Noted on the file page for the alternate file. Please delete the note soon, because your photo is annotated with informative labels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done --Llez (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sure where you're up to with this crop. The feeling of big space is completely lost here. - Benh (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It was not my idea, see the comments of the first version --Llez (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Now take a bit off the top ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Worse, the other photo was at least more scenic ThayneT (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Vista de Reikiavik desde el Paseo de la Bahía, Distrito de la Capital, Islandia, 2014-08-13, DD 150-153 PAN.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2018 at 08:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info Panoramic view of Reykjavik and the Atlantic Ocean during sunset seen from the Shore Walk, Capital Region, Iceland. The city concentrates, with 123,300 inhabitants, 35% of the country population and was founded in around AD 870 by norwagian settlers. Poco2 08:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 08:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice work, but the stitching errors should be fixed.--Ermell (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    I will, Ermell, give me a few hours and I'll uploade a new version --Poco2 10:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    Ermell:   Done Poco2 13:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The problem with many extremely wide panoramas is that most of it doesn't contain anything interesting. It is funny that like Christian's image below, I am drawn to the right side sunset for a crop, though here you actually have the resolution to crop and create an interesting photo. I've highlighted an approximate area that looks very nice like a painting (there may be several possible crops and aspect ratios around this area). But for the whole work, as a composition it isn't working for me. The arc of dark bay and grass is rather boring, and the buildings along the front near us are also disappointingly boring offices. There may be some more interesting buildings further along, but they are really tiny. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    Colin: I have cropped the bottom a bit --Poco2 13:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support What is interesting about this picture is the limitation to a few colours due to the reflective sunlight in the window panes and the almost identical light intensity of the street lighting. The skyline of course lacks the full moon :-) Poc The stitching ist still slightly visible.--Ermell (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    Ermell: Stitching issues are now definitely cleaned up --Poco2 20:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the way it gives a subarctic city an almost tropical feel. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too long aspect ratio and boring composition overall. - Benh (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I agree that this is not the most picturesque view, but at full size, I like the light and detail enough to consider it worthy of a feature. I didn't expect to support until I "pixel-peeped" at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Motif and ratio are outstanding and the whole image is very interesting for me. But the horizon isn´t straight enough for a FP in my eyes. --Milseburg (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    Milseburg: I have "fixed" the horizon in the way I imagine you expect it, but to me this kind of things are not so obvious as one could think, as the water level depends also on the distance and if there is a shore I don't expect the level to be as high as in open sea. Well, whatever, please, have a look -- Poco2 13:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The horizon on the right side was tilted. Now it´s neraby perfect, except of the outmost end. But I want to stop niggling. Don´t cut away anything. The right part is the highlight for me. --Milseburg (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support MZaplotnik(talk) 11:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Cutting this picture in two halves, the right part has nothing interesting and is not of good quality (see sea). The left part is ok, but is the content interesting enough for a FP ? With the whole, I'm not amazed -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 20:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 01:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 10:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Row of white silage bales in Brastad.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2018 at 14:14:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Many thanks to the farmer who did this "art installation". :) I shot it from every angle I could think of (all photos are here) and this "creme puff version" turned out best IMO. All by me, -- cart-Talk 14:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 14:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support This is a nice subject, a nice line and it is a good image but there still is something that is missing, something that would make it a bit more special, or what I would try to make differently. Although I can't tell exactly why and what. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As usual you make me think. :) I had this other version (now uploaded) with more sky that I think feels airier and the sky matches the bales better, but I wasn't sure if the square crop was ok for this landscape so I went for the above version in the end. Maybe I should re-think and go with that instead or as an alt. --cart-Talk 17:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That's really strange. Although they are almost identical images, I like no. 2 better and it sounds ridiculous but compared one against the other, in no. 1 it's more like someone pushed you on the bale while in no. 2 you can breathe more profoundly. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • My personal aesthetics consultant likes no. 1 better :-) --Basotxerri (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Basotxerri: Haha! Well, I'm quite fond of the square where you can breathe, so I guess "Alt" it is. Please pick one (if possible). :) --cart-Talk 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But I am also OK with the uncropped version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Great. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. Sorry. --A.Savin 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I see that you changed the FP category. I wasn't sure if this should go in 'Objects' since there is also a good deal of landscape, but if you say so... --cart-Talk 19:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support This is the better of the two images. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - Mild preference for the alt. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Support --cart-Talk 17:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support At last it's time to breathe! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support this one too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. Sorry. --A.Savin 19:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin. Tomer T (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like both images. I like that my eyes are more drawn to the end of the line of bales in this one, rather than the ones right in front of me in the original. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects
The chosen alternative is: File:Row of white silage bales in Brastad.jpg

File:20180126 FIS NC WC Seefeld Jarl Magnus Riiber 850 0045.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2018 at 13:18:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Note: he is not 100% tack sharp at 100%, but I did not want to downscale the image. That day he had just won the ski jumping competition and was nearly one minute ahead of Akito Watabe, so he was in thoughts about his win and probably about how his strategy for the upcoming race two hours later. -- Granada (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • More than sharp enough. You are actually recommended in the guidelines to downscale images of people to avoid embarassment (see comment below). Charles (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think that part of the guidelines was written before we had high-definition television and BlueRay. We are more used to seeing every beard stubble on folks now. --cart-Talk 09:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Almost too sharp, as it is (we can see what looks like a scab over a former pimple on his face). I like his facial expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support great pic --Stepro (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support fine and sharp enough--Isiwal (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the combination of that intent stare and that slightly off smile. It may not be anything like what was going on when the picture was taken, but it looks like he's thinking "Nice to meet you ... now let's go out and compete so I can kick your ass". Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice capture. Ahh, to be young again and full of hope... --cart-Talk 09:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I fail to see what is so special about this image. The quality is fair enough, but it's just a standard portrait, there's no wow going on.--Peulle (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think there are at least 3 good reasons for this picture being featured. 1) Excellent quality, high resolution, right focus, sharp image and low ISO. 2) Portrait of a sportman in situation, with technical equipment, special clothes, badges and sponsors. 3) Famous personality present in at least 10 different languages of Wikipedia : Jarl Magnus Riiber. Then definitely an important shot IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • For me, the situation is unimpressive. If the guy was just crossing the line of an important race, or jumping for joy on the podium, I'd agree that there was something special going on. In this case, it's just a portrait, and I don't agree that such images should be hailed as the finest on Commons. If we did, we'd be saying that any good image of an athlete is exceptional, and I don't think it is.--Peulle (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Peulle, this is for 'People#Portrait' and it sounds like you are confusing it with 'Sports'. Please take a look at Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait. No one in that section is crossing or jumping anything, it is "just" very good head shots of peoples from different walks of life. And even if you stated above that such photos ("it's just a portrait") should not be hailed as the finest on Commons, there are a lot of them. A portrait is about capturing a subject sharp, in good lighting, with a good expression, preferably with something that relates to the person or in a situation where the person is in his/hers element. I'd say this ticks all those boxes. --cart-Talk 09:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Sure, except that FP is about something more than technical quality.--Peulle (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Of course, and IMO this has that extra that falls under good expression and situation. --cart-Talk 10:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 09:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People


Zeitplan (Tag 5 nach der Nominierung)Edit

Tue 13 Feb → Sun 18 Feb
Wed 14 Feb → Mon 19 Feb
Thu 15 Feb → Tue 20 Feb
Fri 16 Feb → Wed 21 Feb
Sat 17 Feb → Thu 22 Feb
Sun 18 Feb → Fri 23 Feb

Zeitplan (Tag 10 nach der Nominierung)Edit

Thu 08 Feb → Sun 18 Feb
Fri 09 Feb → Mon 19 Feb
Sat 10 Feb → Tue 20 Feb
Sun 11 Feb → Wed 21 Feb
Mon 12 Feb → Thu 22 Feb
Tue 13 Feb → Fri 23 Feb
Wed 14 Feb → Sat 24 Feb
Thu 15 Feb → Sun 25 Feb
Fri 16 Feb → Mon 26 Feb
Sat 17 Feb → Tue 27 Feb
Sun 18 Feb → Wed 28 Feb