Commons:Kandidater till utvalda bilder

Det här är kandidater till att bli utvalda bilder.

För ett arkiv av tidigare nominerade se: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log

Det finns också en kronologisk lista av utvalda bilder.

NomineringEdit

Om du tror att du har funnit eller skapat en bild som kan anses värdefull, lägg till den här nedan i sektionen för nomineringar, högst upp i listan, med hjälp av den här länken (Hjälp). För det behöver du inte ha en inloggning, även anonyma användare får nominera.

Men innan du nominerar, kolla upp så att bilden har lämplig bildbeskrivning och licens.

OmröstningsreglerEdit

  • Röstningen pågår i 9 dagar. På den 10:e dagen blir resultatet fastställt.
  • Om en bild efter 5 dagar inte fått någon mer positiv röst än från den som nominerade, så kan kandidaten tas bort ifrån sidan.
  • Nomineringar ifrån oinloggade bidragsgivare är välkomna
  • Bidrag ifrån oinloggade bidragsgivare till diskussionen är välkomna
  • Röstning från oinloggade bidragsgivare räknas inte
  • En nominering räknas inte som en röst, men den som nominerar får rösta
  • Den som nominerar en bild kan när som helst ta bort bilden ifrån omröstningen

En kandidat kommer att bli en utvald bild om följande krav uppfylls:

  • Lämplig licens (så klart)
  • Minst 5 stödjande röster
  • Förhållande mellan stödjande/motsättande röster på minst 2/1 (minst två tredjedels majoritet)
  • Två olika versioner av samma bild kan inte båda bli utvalda; endast den med högst antal stödjande röster blir utvald.

Röstning kan göras med "{{Support}}" (stöd) eller "{{Oppose}}" (ej stöd), neutralitet kan anges med "{{Neutral}}".

KandidaterEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Casa histórica de Tabatabaeis, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 65.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 11:56:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Interior courtyard of the Tabātabāei House, a historic house in Kashan, Iran. The house was built in the early 1880s by Ustad Ali Maryam, architect of the Borujerdis House and has 40 rooms, 4 courtyards, 4 basements and 3 windwards spread over a surface of almost 5,000 square metres (54,000 sq ft). All by me, Poco2 11:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 11:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Beautiful scene, but the wire against the sky is unfitting thematically, as there are no other modern objects around. I'd support without it. – LucasT 13:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The wire doesn't spoil anything for me: It's above the house and doesn't block anything. I wouldn't like for it to be removed, because another viewer at the scene would see it, too. That's modern life. I accept things for what they are more readily than many of the rest of the FPC habitue(e)s. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Prise de la ville et de la citadelle de Gand en six jours - Hall of Mirrors (Palace of Versailles).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 22:56:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I haven't been to Versailles since the early 90s. Is that how the painting looks, or should it be a bit more saturated? I ask this merely as a question, without implying anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment surely they have been restored,but i don't know when. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Understood. I'll live with this photo for a while and see if I get any wow from it later. So far, parts of the painting seem undersaturated and a bit glary to me, and while that may indeed be how it looked, it's not wowing me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Dalmatian fetching a tree branch.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 20:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
  •   Info all by me – LucasT 20:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 20:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I immediately noticed this at thumbnail size on opening the page. I love the dynamism of the picture. By the way, we would call that a stick, not a tree branch. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like it, but can you do anything about the blown white bits? Charles (talk)
Charles, I already adjusted the levels in the RAW file so that there is a small white area and a small black area and not any extensive clipping. Examining the jpg, there is detail on its head, right next to the white point. I feel bringing highlight detail out even more would look unnatural, similar to snow photos. – LucasT 07:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support worth asking. Charles (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool. --A.Savin 02:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Goood boy! (pant pant pant) Goooooooooood boy! Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well captured. --cart-Talk 09:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Mount Ararat and the Araratian plain (cropped).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 19:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:View to One World Trade Center.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 18:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I contacted the photographer and offered to edit it from the RAW file, if these remain the only issues. – LucasT 19:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Regretful   Oppose because of the lights. I get what the photographer intended, but the new WTC blends with the sky way too much to serve as the intended centerpiece. The wonderful contrast with the golden reflections unfortunately only serve to exaggerate the issue. KennyOMG (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sadly, I have to agree with KennyOMG. This wouldn't have been an issue if the pic wasn't so heavily saturated. I downloaded it and desaturated as much as 36% before it looked more normal and the tower contrasted very nicely with the sky, the pic also looked clearer. Taking a look at this user's photos most of them are the same way so maybe it's a setting on her camera. I would gladly support a desaturated and vertical-fixed version though. --cart-Talk 21:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I nominated this picture for QI (it passed), but I'm not sure about FP. cart, I'd like to see your edited version. Olga1969, is it OK with you if we have a chance to look at cart's edit of your photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we can wait until Lucas has got a response from Olga. As nominator he is now aware of this and may act on it when/if he reprocesses the file from RAW. I can put my version in my dropbox later if you want to check it out. --cart-Talk 22:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose this version because as Kenny points out correctly it was overcooked—it looks like it should be used in an ad (not that that's always a dealbreaker). I would be interested in cart's version. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment As others already pointed out this picture deserves a careful postprocessing and could then certainly become FP. --Code (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination For now I think it's tidier to close this and renominate later when the verticals, tilt, noise and oversaturation are fixed by someone, preferably working from the RAW file. – LucasT 16:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7684.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 16:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info Praying Jew at Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem - all by -- Ralf Roleček 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many distracting elements in the composition that look not clear to me --The Photographer 16:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Regretful   Oppose - This is a great photo of a man, but I have to agree with The Photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per The Photographer and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Common blue damselfly (Enallagma cyathigerum) immature male.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 14:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks. Great job. Your version is on top now. Charles (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Forested hills in Lysekil in fog - B&W.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 13:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
  •   Info The ridges of the hills in Bohuslän can produce some striking scenery at times. These are the hills between two fjords, geological formations that are the south part of the landscape more associated with Norway. The color version was not very different from this B&W, so converting it was only natural. All by me -- cart-Talk 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I   Support the nomination. I'm undecided on whether I like the B&W or color version better, but I think that's only because the color version has more light in the middleground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Another image for the "walls of a psychiatrist's office" category.   Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Rats! I should not have given up my copyright for this, psychiatrics usually do very well and I could have charged a bundle for it. ;) --cart-Talk 19:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I would have preferred the color version for the blue tint, but grayscale (for most images B&W is a misnomer) works too. – LucasT 16:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Forest Path.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 13:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Lathronniel - uploaded by Lathronniel - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment File name needs to be changed, this is not a "Forest Path" but a "Forest Stream". --cart-Talk 13:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice photo, but not in my opinion outstanding enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose I hate to drag this one out but there are just so many things wrong with it that properly naming it won't fix. It's cluttered compositionally, the white balance is thrown off by the preponderance of orange leaves in the image and was not corrected, and on the whole it's as unsharp as the aperture setting would suggest it would be. We have a higher standard for this sort of picture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:A Portrait of Karim Khan Zand on Horseback.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 06:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Low resolution. Not very sharp. Poor condition of painting. Sorry but this is a long way from being one of our finest reproductions of artworks. -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Prague 07-2016 Metro img5 LineB Andel.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 00:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Red Dragonlets (Erythrodiplax fusca) in Botanical Garden of São Paulo, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 22:32:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

it was a union technique of join 25 images to remove the noise. IMHO I can't get more size and quality because lens. I don't know why ask for more size if the camera can't give more and the fp requeriment size is only 2 mp. I am in process to buy a D7200, however, I can't understand where we are going asking for more and more size and forcing to the photographer community to get a quality imposible without a last line dslr machine. Thanks for your commet, I am open too to receive some recommendations and not only criticism to improve my quality. --The Photographer 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I was harsh in my choice of words. There are quite a few 'how to' guides online for dragonflies, the most important of which is to know that they will return to the same perch so you can be ready with the right light, nice bokeh, appropriate camera settings and a good stance so you can use slowish shutter speed. I try to use a monopod, but tripod even better. Jee takes excellent images using flash, but I'm not keen. Charles (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You don't need tell sorry, you are a especialized photographer in this area. My comment was more a general comment, also, It was a bit frustrating trying to get clear pictures yes, however it's not somethig personal with your comment. I respect your comment a lot, perhaps in the process of write my comment I did it wrong and look like a complaint comment, however, it is more a general size critique that many others have commented here, excessive fanaticism for super size images. --The Photographer 13:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles and his knowledge and experience in this kind of photography. Daniel Case (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would like to know what Jee thinks about the focus issue with the tail. I think the exact species is not identified on page so that may be an issue too wrt FP status. Compare File:Red faced dragonlet (Erythrodiplax fusca) male.JPG for similar species. The insect seems rather over-saturated red, though that might be the correct lighting, it might also be a sign the image has been overcooked for saturation. Wrt the size, I don't think Charles was suggesting that there is an issue with getting FP from your 12MP camera, just that cropping does rapidly reduce file size and so good technique is required to get close-up photos of insects. [You've been here long enough to know that 2MP is a minimum necessary but not sufficient requirement -- being above 2MP is no guarantee of acceptance and in fact I'd be interested if we have much recent promotions below 5MP] Anyway, I disagree the image needs cropped, and the lovely smooth background is a feature of the photo. Not all our insect photos need to be close crops, and I think sometimes we neglect to find beauty outside of the obvious subject. I would be interested to know more about the technique mentioned about 25 frames. Was this taken on a tripod? Surely the branch and insect were moving. So how can one align 25 frames in that circumstance? -- Colin (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. We need to identify the species first. Posting at Dragonflies & Damselflies may helps. There are a lot of species in this genus. 2. It seems in backlit; thorax and tip of abdomen in shadows. 3. The red seems OK for me. 4. Both, tight framing and giving some room around the subject is the photographer's choice. This too works. Jee 11:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Colin and Jk, thanks for your review. The images was taken using tripod and I used your ISO removal technique joining each image in photoshop with 100/25 % of opacity for each layer. About the color I applied a bit color saturation and for your comment it was too strong. Finally, With respect to species identification, I did a personal investigation and it can be a Erythrodiplax fusca, however, I have not been able to contact an expert for this identification --The Photographer 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, likely a mature male E. fusca as you can see the remains of the blue pruinescence on the abdomen. I think your Photoshop technique (new to me!) is probably losing too much definition in the hairs Charles (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Charles, the technique was talked about here (at least that's where it started) if you are interested. The loss of def on the hairs is probably more due to movement since the trick is used to reveal smaller objects. --cart-Talk 12:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This technique is the best noise reduction technique that I know, basically a miracle --The Photographer 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes. I remember. My Canon 70D has a low light setting that does this in Camera, but I've never got it to work properly. I can't imagine many days in the field where you wouldn't get degradation of sharpness of odonata hairs. I'll nominate a traditional image for comparison. Charles (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Benoît Guillon confirmed that this is Erythrodiplax fusca. Jee 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Thanks for help me in the identification procedure. BTW, @Colin: I rollbacked any vibrance/saturation to the original image (now it has the original colors without any change) and I added some sharpening in the abdomen @Charlesjsharp:. --The Photographer 13:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:BalnearioAlfonsina-LaPerlaMDP-feb2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 22:23:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me Ezarateesteban 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I enjoy looking at this. There's a nice counterpoint between the - what do they call those? tents? - in the foreground and middleground and the buildings in the further middleground and background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The lighting is too flat for me. Would be better to take early morning or late afternoon. -- King of ♠ 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ah, the gilded terrors of mass tourism --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support King is right about the lighting but I find the sea of tents irresistible. Daniel Case (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Albert Kuvezin 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 19:09:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:U 871 Ölsta.tifEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 13:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments_and_memorials
  •   Info created by Creator:Bengt A. Lundberg - uploaded by Biltvätt - nominated by Ainali -- Ainali (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ainali (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me this photo is more of VI than FP here on Commons. Speaking of the photo itself, there is the very large black shadow behind the stone in sharp contrast to the very brightly colored stone which does not make it a good wow-y photo. As a representative for rune stones, I don't like it at all. This stone is brought from its original context to the open-air museum (Skansen) where it has been painted in garish colors that could only have been fashionable in the 90s. The paint is only for the benefit of the tourists at Skansen, to make the markings more visible. There is no evidence that the stones were ever painted in this way. For me this feels very much like a sort of "Viking Disneyland". A nice photo of a Swedish rune stone would be something along the lines of this or this, IMO. --cart-Talk 18:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment The section en:Runestone#Colour does not seem to be as sure as you are, but I'll check with experts at the Swedish National Heritage Board tomorrow about the coloring. Ainali (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that paint wasn't used, just not such bright, opaque colors as these. The true pigments and the medium they were mixed with (giving the paint a translucent quality) could not have covered the stone in the way modern paints do. --cart-Talk 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I just talked to some colleagues at the Swedish National Heritage Board that are runestone experts and they say that is possible that this is how runestones looked back in the day, there are runestones from Öland found with traces of this sort of coloring (however not on runestones of the stonetype in this particular stone). In 1991 this painting was done with red lead and white lead, colors available long before the vikings (your link is to a rock art picture which is thousands of years older) both to show how they may have looked like and to see if it would preserve the stone better from lichen. BUT, regardless of the accuracy of the painting of the stone, this is how the runestone looks like today and it is a notable object (with articles in 5 languages already) and I want to remind you that this is not a candidate for Valued Image for runestones in general. It clearly has value according to the Featured picture criteria just in documenting this object as such. Ainali (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making the effort to talk to the Heritage Board. My comment was based on discussions I've had with the paint restoration expert at Gotland Museum regarding their rune stones (or rather picture stones) so it's scholar against scholar. I linked to that other image to show how paint/pigments using non-modern biding materials looked, that has not changed over time. As for VI, I was suggesting it could be a VI for this particular stone (and I really think it should be that too), not all of them. BUT, as you say, this is a photo of the stone today and I still think it is far from the artistic photo that is a requirement for FPs here with the wow factor and all. FPs on different language Wikipedia is another thing, where a photo is more judged on its strictly encyclopedic value. Perhaps you could ask ArildV to take a photo of the stone, he is a master of good lighting and would do this beautifully, I'm sure. --cart-Talk 08:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Picture stones are different things (and usually much older), so it's not really scholar aginst scholar, rather two scholars talking about separate phenomenon. Runestones : a colourful memory is recommended reading which supports that runestones were painted this way (but now we are really far off topic for the FP discussion, all this should be irrelevant for how votes are casted). Ainali (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • We stray off topic all the time. ;) Anyway, I've nominated the pic for VI. --cart-Talk 11:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The nomination hasn't been made visible at VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ikan, I fumbled the last step. This is probably one reason you shouldn't edit at work... you get distracted. ;) --cart-Talk 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. From my own minimal experience with Swedish runestones, I recall them being sparsley painted compared to this, and for that they actually looked better on cloudy days ("Viking Disneyland"   ... yup, that's about right). In fact it seems like this picture was punched up a bit much—it's not oversaturated, but it still seems like it's trying a bit too hard. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The image has not been digitally manipulated but is scanned from an analogue photo. It is taken by Bengt A Lundberg in his service of the Swedish National Heritage Board with the purpose of documenting it so one should expect it to be a faithful representation and not an artistic rendering of reality. Ainali (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
A scanned print ... OK, that explains it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Aiguille-du-Midi-sundown.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 12:45:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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

- Nice photo, but the absolute minimum size for FP (and QI) is 2 megapixels, and normally, photos anywhere near that small are never featured, nowadays, unless they are incredibly fantastic or historically important. Please read the "Guidelines for nominators" above and Commons:Image guidelines before you nominate another photo. Good choice, though, otherwise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Beijzelde vruchten van een Esdoorn (Acer). Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 06:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Acer #Family Sapindaceae.
  •   Info Icy fruits of a Maple (Acer). Location, Natuurterrein The Famberhorst. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The DOF is quite shallow, rendering parts of the subject blurry I would have liked to see sharp. I also find the light not the best, it looks a bit dull. There is no wow factor for me, because I feel many photographers have a similar shot in their collection when starting macro photography. The ice itself is also not the best looking IMO—while I'm no expert—it looks partly molten, with many small rounded blobs of ice. The centered composition with the OOF branch crossing the main subject is also not optimal. – LucasT 07:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - What's in focus is great, but not enough is in focus, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni) male head.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 17:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info This is a renomination using a (less tight) crop of the the original file processed by The Photographer, hopefully without the defects of the previous version. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I find this quite an impressive closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the sharpness and background are all fine, but my previous reason for opposing is still there: "I would have liked to see a bit more of the bird's neck. Now it looks as if it is striving to keep its head above the bottom line of the photo. With such a heavy beak, almost (vertical) centering the eye is not enough, the centre of gravity of the subject is too low." --cart-Talk 11:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think this crop is actually worse than the original one. It introduced additional space at the top and right, but what is missing is some en:Lead room at the bottom and left. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose So I've looked at many bird FPs to judge how this one stacks up. My strongest argument so far is that it crops out too much on the bottom while the headroom is not containing much information about the environment the bird is in (grass? green mud? Zoo?). Comparing with FPs of birds with blurred background, most of them at least have more bird to look at in them, but to be fair some are in fact very similar in composition. Going along is that the lighting is good but IMO not adding any excitement, the whole image looks a bit grey and unprocessed (the file history shows that it originates from a OOC RAW, and the subsequent versions never added saturation), so if this would be improved together with the composition I would be willing to reconsider. I often read that FP needs wow and I believe FPs should showcase both excellent photography and subjects. The subject has potential, but I can't find enough aspects of good photography, it's just a unprocessed telephoto shot under diffuse light with green background. – LucasT 17:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Lucas and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Egyptian Scribe - Louvre January 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 19:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Bradley Weber - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not for FPC, face is unsharp in top left and crop is too tigh Ezarateesteban 21:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I have to agree. On the same basis, it could have a hard time at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A crop such as this is "fashionable" for portraits, not so good for FPs of statues though. --cart-Talk 11:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Vista de Tiflis, Georgia, 2016-09-29, DD 52-55 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 17:33:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Not my picture but if memory serves me well it should be just a hair over 180 degeres, taken from a bastion on the fortress wall? Def not more than 200. KennyOMG (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've added the coordinates to make it more clear. It's indeed a half panorama of about 180 degrees. Poco2 18:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice colors but I find the deep shadows on the sides a little disturbing. -- King of ♠ 03:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Phalacrocorax carbo, Hérault River cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 16:57:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment The bird is not flapping its wings, it's drying them. They stand like that for ages. Charles (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Interesting, thanks. Still a striking photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Allegory Treaty of the Pyrenees Louvre.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 09:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done check now thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:First NASA ISINGLASS rocket launch.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 02:18:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ice formations 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 23:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
  •   Info Icicles and ice formations on a granite cliff in Gåseberg, Lysekil Municipality, Sweden. The "growth rings" or banding on the icicles occurs as the water in the soil above the cliff thaws during the day and freezes during the night. All my me -- cart-Talk 23:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 23:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like this series a lot and respect you for preferring this photo, though I prefer the other ones that feel to me like they show flow more and look more waterfally, especially File:Ice formations 4.jpg and File:Ice formations 5.jpg, and specifically in terms of this photo, I prefer File:Ice formations 3.jpg, which because it shows more height shows the flow of the ice more. But every photo in this series is quite interesting. Perhaps more than one could be featured, eventually? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The textures in the icicles are rather mesmerizing at full resolution. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Julian. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Flood under the Old Route 49 bridge crossing over the South Yuba River in Nevada City, California.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 23:04:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created by Kelly M. Grow/ California Department of Water Resources, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There is a bit of CA left, I wasn't able to remove it completely. Seeing the size, and that it cannot be retaken, it should be OK. -- Yann (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportJuliancolton | Talk 02:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive composition, sharperning fallen water is always difficult --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 21:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yann, I have a version with most of the remaining CA removed. Interested? --cart-Talk 23:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I am. Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I am, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
W.carter: Sure! Yann (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  Done Please revert if you don't like it. --cart-Talk 10:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
As has happened before at times, I can't tell the difference. Where was the CA? Anyway, this is a dramatic picture, so I'll join everyone in   Supporting it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
If you want to see some of the "worst" places, compare the pile of large grey boulders on the right side, there was a lot of bright green fringes there. Second, look at the railing on the bridge, each upright post had a red line on one side and a green on the other. You could also check out the two men on the left side, they are no longer smeared by red and green shadows. CA is like your dust spots, once you see it you can't unsee it. ;) --cart-Talk 12:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Now this is a bridge over troubled water. I can't believe those people are actually standing on it ... I wouldn't be (See my own encounter with a similar situation here). Daniel Case (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Michielverbeek -- WClarke 04:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 12:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pont-canal de l'Orb cf07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 22:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Henk Fortuin, het Lage Licht foto5 2017-02-01 15.44.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 20:14:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sognefjorden sett frå Skjersnes.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 20:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Norway
  •   Info created by bep - uploaded by bep - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Seen on QIC. Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Martin. Very interesting light. Good photographer; I've been enjoying his pictures and sensibility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very pleasant composition. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Mmmm.... --cart-Talk 23:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As I'm probably off for some days I will support it in advance -   Comment trusting that the CAs (lower border of the rope and the cliffs on the right bank) will be fixed. --PtrQs (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Bep: As you surely work with the RAW, could you try to fix this? Thanks in advance! --Basotxerri (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
You have to be really picky to spot th CA there, but since this is my first FP nomination, I will take a stab on removing it. --Bep (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the new version should be OK. --Bep (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support What a wonderful scene! --Schnobby (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love its smokiness ... I can practically taste salmon in my mouth as I look at it, feel the cold breeze against my cheek, and a slight sense of dread at the prospect of the cold depths below. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 19:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info The battle of Fimreite, a naval battle fought on 15 June 1184 between King Magnus Erlingsson and the Birkebeiner pretender Sverre Sigurdsson, was staged in the upper left part of the fjord. I lost my (cheap) camera remote taking this picture. It now lives on the bottom of the fjord with all the Viking swords. --Bep (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Jardín Botánico Olarizu - Bellota de encina 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 19:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Ice
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great esp. at full screen! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Brilliant. -- King of ♠ 21:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There may be something that I'm missing, because while I like the acorn, the frosty leaves that are clear and the light, the composition isn't working for me that much, I think partly because so many of the leaves blend into this resplendent light to such an extent, but maybe more so because of the nature of the arabesque created by the clearer leaves. I think I'd enjoy the composition more if there were more space under the bottom leaves on the left, or at least if they weren't cut off, but of course I don't know what shapes are under them. I'm inclined to respect whatever consensus develops but so far don't feel impelled to vote for this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Perky little acorn perfectly placed in the photo, one of those pics that makes me happy to see. :) --cart-Talk 23:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the juxtapositions of seasonal images this creates: the hoarfrost on the green leaves (apparently the holm oak is a broadleaf evergreen, just like the mountain laurel so common in the higher-elevation woods I hike in over here) with the plucky little acorn cart noted suggesting fall. Daniel Case (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Echt judasoor (Auricularia auricula-judae, synoniem, Hirneola auricula-judae). Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 19:05:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Fungi # Auricularia auricula-judae # Family: Auriculariaceae.
  •   Info real Auricularia auricula-judae (Auricularia auricula-judae, synonym, Hirneola auricula-judae). Location, Natuurterrein The Famberhorst. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great but please remove the dust spot. Thanks! --21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I don't see a dust spot. Clean lines, nice placement of the tree ears within the picture frame, interesting shapes, good light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see it now. Very light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  Done. spot removed. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not only is the bottom branch somewhat distracting, it is also rather noisy, and the edges of the branches sort of look weird and overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: The dead narrow branch in dissolution.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:20110421 Tbilisi Georgia Panoramic.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 18:51:52
 

  •   Info Pretty dull, nondescript and shows only a portion of the city. Saw that Poco has 3 panos that are much superior to anything else on Commons. Both this and this are superb (apart from half the image leaning to the right that needx fixing), either would be an excellent replacement. I guess this makes my 2nd active nom so I can do it on Tue, or if someone else wants to do the honors... (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep We delist when it clearly falls short of our modern standards, not if we regret our original decision or if there are better pictures around. This is not enwp, we can afford to have multiple similar FPs. -- King of ♠ 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Looks like a very good picture to me. No reason to delist. I think that delisting should take place only when it seems like an obvious step. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep Per others. lNeverCry 03:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Keep per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination I have learnt this is not enwp. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Airborne by Christopher Klein, Munich, February 2017 -2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2017 at 15:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Casa histórica de Abbasi, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 77.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 19:21:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info View of one of the six courtyards of the Abbāsi House, a large traditional historical house located in Kashan, Iran. Built during the late 18th century, it is said to have been the property of a famous cleric. All by me, Poco2 19:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question I hesitate to ask, but did you wilfully change the crop for showing that blue border on the right? --PtrQs (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    PtrQs: no, that was not on purpose,   fixed Poco2 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely symmetry and color. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very picturesque --PtrQs (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pepe Lopez Peugeot 208 T16 (3).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 17:41:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 11.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 16:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, probably a ridiculous thought. And I certainly don't think it's problematic in the least. So nevermind, I'll edit it out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I was afraid we had reverted to a time before the suffragettes when a woman was counted as half a man.  --cart-Talk 21:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp photo, beautiful composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but I prefer the other one. -- King of ♠ 21:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
      Question - Do you think the other composition is different enough to also be an FP? Perhaps it would be a good thing to nominate that one, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    I think they might be too similar to both feature; how about adding it as an alt? (I think the proper rule for alts is not "are they different edits/crops of the same raw file" but rather "are they similar enough that they cannot both be featured.") -- King of ♠ 23:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    My impression is that alts must actually be different versions of the same shot and that these two photos would definitely be too different for one to be an alt, although the similarity might work against a feature for both. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates about this issue. -- King of ♠ 08:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. I'm delighted by the positive response to this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Helgolandpanorama vom Pinneberg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really don't see the point in this photo. Despite the claim it was taken from the highest point on the island, it seems to be the point with the worst view. There are three ugly concrete slabs dominating the photo, along with dirt paths. The distortions of a 360 panorama mean it is very hard to appreciate what the actual scene looks like. The island looks like this and there are high cliffs all round where the photo was taken. Whereas the 360x180 photos have a dedicated viewer that removes the distortion, this sort of image just doesn't work well unless the view is fantastic. I suggest you concentrate on finding the best angle from which to get the best view, and select what you want to photograph. A 360, by its nature, cannot be selective and doesn't really have a composition. -- Colin (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Colin. Yann (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment @Colin:, @Yann: I thought about presenting another cut with less foreground as in the other version. But I already heard the critics, the picture would be too much like a letterbox and that there would be not to see enough in the foreground. --Milseburg (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (I think you mean a postcard. A letter box is literally a box that letters are put into.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I understood the letter-box critique at that time like this: A Panorama should not have the format of the slit of a letter box. In fact this is not my opinion. --Milseburg (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh. I don't see why not. I tend to be a pragmatist on things like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Draco volans 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Watford Jon (Argy Bargy) IMGP4754 smial wp.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info all by me -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I like the "Hey, you!" gesture and expression. What are we looking at that appears to be a narrow diagonal shaft of light? Is that exactly what it is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good stage photo, but I would also like to get rid of that part of the stage rig. Right now it is "impaling" the poor guy. ;) Had it ended up anywhere else than in his mouth/head, I don't think it would have been an issue. --cart-Talk 21:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek and cart: That is part of the stage construction. Besides some basic corrections (WB, contrast, exposure, crop, perspective, dust spot removal, if necessary) I avoid any retouching, and I'm really not experienced to do so. I've taken slides for 30+ years, and I try to take digital images as authentic as possible, just like "enhanced" slides. --Smial (talk) 01:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the explanation, Smial. The diagonal is a bit strange, but I   Support, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, on reflection, the strange effect of the diagonal prevents me from considering this one of the very best photos on the site. So I've annulled my support vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 21:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WClarke 04:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I respect that Smial doesn't want to mess with the image, but the background shapes stabbing him is too unfortunate for a support from me. If an object is growing out of someone's head, one would shift the camera. In a case like this where the background is almost black anyway, I would "darken" (--> remove) these shapes without second thoughts. Paraphrased from one of Scott Kelby's talks: Retouching is done to make the person look and feel like you were there, not how the person really looks and appears in the photograph. – LucasT 12:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jake Kiley (Strung Out) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP4953 nmz.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Smial - uploaded by Smial - nominated by -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Regardless of the motion blur, I'm inclined to support because of the expression, but similar question as for the other one: Is that a reflection of him and the guitar in the upper left corner of the frame? If so, fine, and I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
No reflection, it's part of the stage construction. --Smial (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The photo is sharp, expressive and has some action but... somehow the wow eludes me. It's cropped rather tight and the light is very flat for a stage photo. Making a face and waiving a guitar is not enough to send shivers down my spine, sorry. --cart-Talk 21:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop too tight, per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Carter  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Dome Cappella Chigi, Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017 -01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex completed in 2004. It was planned by Murphy/Jahn and - involuntarily - helped foster the strongly developed anti-highrise-stance in Munich's populace. I've taken a little series of pictures showing the colorful LED illumination of its exterior, of which I like -01 best, although that was a tough choice. Btw., I used to work in one of the towers about 10 years ago. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support cool. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I thought to nominate it. --Yann (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really great! --cart-Talk 10:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support again. Daniel Case (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info /   Comment cart somehow achieved to turn my simple architectural pics into fancy triptychs, see (1) and (2). Thanks again!   --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   --cart-Talk 11:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 21:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Perspective, Komposition, technische Ausführung – alles große Klasse! Glückwunsch zu dieser gelungenen Arbeit. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 13:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture#Germany

File:Hinckley Daysailor 42 by D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created and such by -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me. The breakwater adds an unusual element to this photo. But please add a geotag and much better description plus categories. Since you have entered this in the "Sports" FP category instead of "Objects/Vehicles/Sailboats", I guess the pic is from some competition and that plus location should also be explained. --cart-Talk 09:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Thank you, the photo is of a "Yacht Racing" in an annual NHYC Regatta.--Don (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for telling us! Now could you please add that to the file's description and fix the geocode and category too. Much obliged. :) --cart-Talk 22:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's great. I've added the rest of the info and improved the categories on the file's page for you. Having all that info there is just as important as the picture itself for an FP. Hope I got it right. --cart-Talk 13:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 1/500 s not fast enough to freeze motion. Charles (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 03:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergwandeltocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel (1,839 m) in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italy) 23.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:34:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Mountain Walking Tour from Pejo to Lago Covel (1,839 m) in the Stelvio National Park (Italy). Views of the surrounding landscape. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice color depth and well composed --Don (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice colors and stunning view. It reminds me of those pictures they had on chocolate boxes when I was a kid. --cart-Talk 09:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice pic and beautiful have a lady here --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a pretty spectacular picture, especially the lighted rocky mountainsides, and it's at its best at full size. I see the one tree in the near foreground all the way over to the right as a slight imperfection, but I doubt that cropping it out would make the overall composition better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pugilist (talk)
  •   Support Like a Romantic painting --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Divine. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great layers of light. -- King of ♠ 21:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 13:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:OSIRIS Mars true color.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 21:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I have no idea, the ESA caption doesn't mention it. It's about the right size to be Deimos, but Deimos is in a nearly perfect equatorial orbit, and due to this I can't think of a combination of angles that would make appearing where it does in the image plausible. My guess would be a bright star or planet in the background. It could also be a camera artifact I guess. A2soup (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing. Charles (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Any photograph like this of a planet in our solar system is going to have a high degree of uniqueness, though I'm not blown away by this one. The colors are nice, though the resolution and detail isn't anything special, especially when compared to other similar photos of planets, like this one of Pluto from 2015. Sorry. WClarke 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's because this image was taken in 2007. However, there are no FP or even QI or VI images of the entire planet with details. I would   Support featuring this until we have a better one, and probably even after that, as a historical image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 02:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support agree that resolution leaves quite a bit to be desired, but stunning nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Dull lighting, no wow for me. Also per WClarke. Yes, it's special because of the subject, but as a non-expert this is not interesting to look at. I find this falls into the category of the more boring planet photos and I would gladly support the more exciting ones out there. – LucasT 19:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You could do a good service if you can find some higher-quality NASA photos of the entire planet of Mars and upload them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, I never commented on resolution, but on lighting and overal photographic qualities. I realise that we get what we get here and it certainly is a novelty subject, but I feel this is better suited as VI and comparing it with majority of the space FPs we have I just find it not exciting enough. Looking at the other replies below, there are "better" images of Mars out there. I'm fine with being the only opposer though. – LucasT 09:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lucas, you've stated before, if my memory isn't playing tricks with me, that you don't have much interest in astronomy. It looks like most of the rest of us do. And novelty is quite an important reason for a feature. It's way too soon to be jaded with sizable full-planet pictures of Mars! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are several big Mars photos on NASA pages (1 2 3) , but how do we know if they are free? --cart-Talk 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, under U.S. law, all government pictures that are not classified (or in the case of C.I.A. photos and the like, declassified) are freely usable by the public. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note that all those images are mosaic composites of low-altitude images taken by orbiters, as you can easily see by looking near the edges where the mapping of the images onto a globe breaks down. The level of detail is obviously very high, but the verisimilitude, as you might imagine, is lower. This is, to my knowledge, the highest quality image of the entire planet taken from the perspective depicted.
I would also add that the second image linked above, despite its wide dissemination, is actually highly misleading, as it maps images from a significantly less-than-global portion of the Martian surface onto a globe, distorting the size and location of the features depicted (primarily the Valles Marineris), as can easily be seen when referencing a global map of Mars or either of the other images linked above, which both show Valles Marineris in a true global mosaic. The imagery for that mosaic was obtained by the Viking 1 orbiter (the first US Mars orbiter), which orbited at a 39.5˚ inclination and was therefore unable to image the entire surface - it was the best they could do at the time. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A2soup, thanks for the explanation. Nice to get all the ins and outs of these pictures sorted out. It also confirms that I should stay away from uploading space pics, since I don't know enough about it. :) But they are pretty and interesting! --cart-Talk 10:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Râşnov Citadel (Rosenauer Burg) 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 18:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment shame about the people. Charles (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. Generally well-done, but as a slightly unsharp (especially the left edge) 7 MP image with no mitigating factors or the feeling of "wow, we have to promote this even if the quality is a bit lower than usual." -- King of ♠ 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per KoH --PtrQs (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King. Seems to me that the image might have had some serious overexposure on the building which was brought under control at the cost of looking overprocessed (something about the blue in the sky doesn't strike me the right way). Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it; the composition is good and the path with people walking up and down reminds me of a picture book -- Thennicke (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support no pseudo sharpness visible. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Pudelek, could you possibly sharpen the citadel a bit? I find absolutely nothing wrong with the composition. The only thing that makes me unlikely to vote for a feature is the noted slight unsharpness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    Ikan Kekek - mayby now?? --Pudelek (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Pudelek. It's definitely better. I'm deliberating about whether to weakly support a feature now or to remain neutral. I don't have any questions about whether it's a featurable composition and a very good picture, and you improved it noticeably. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I like the composition, but the technical part could be better. Overall nice work! -- Wolf im Wald 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per Wolf im Wald. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:PlayaVarese-04920.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, somewhat dull lighting, the clouds are a bit interesting, but the brown water destroys it and I see no clear subject. It looks like a just decent tourist shot to me, sorry. – LucasT 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the composition but the blown highlights on the surf and building are too much ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sky does not really impressed me --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  Request What is the standard for sky expected here? Ezarateesteban 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7673.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nitpicks like the noisy upper edges aside, I'm sadly not wowed by it enough. It's a decent photo though. I just feel like a different camera position and composition would have emphasized the specialty of the wall better. – LucasT 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Even if it lacks the drama associated to this place, it is a pretty good description picture. The details on the wall are interesting, and even the people give a sense of the place, in a more mundane manner. The photo teaches. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Tomas --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I haven't decided how or even whether to vote on this photo, but in some ways, I prefer several of your other photos of the Kotel to this one: File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7689.jpg has a satisfying near-rectilinearity as compared to this one's slant, and I like the motion of the men walking toward the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7691.jpg, which concentrates on the women's section, shows the pitchers for the blessing on washing, putting the wall in a different context, though there's a dust spot that should be cleaned toward the right above the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7690.jpg shows men praying and touching the wall from an appealing angle. None of the photos are perfect and all can be critiqued, but all are good and different. However, compared to the others, I can't think of anything that strikes me about this one as special. So that's likely to result in either a non-vote or a mild oppose vote from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas; a very static image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is not a bad raw material for a great photo. I think that a crop would give it a much more forceful look, the angle and the wide floor makes it a bit touristy. See note. I downloaded it and tried it, it came out very nice. Try it. Anyone else agree? --cart-Talk 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Good eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Why not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my own remarks above and others' remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-11-30 Cimitero Monumentale Milano RR2 7543.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Cimitero Monumentale in Mailand - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a well executed photo and a worthy QI, but it misses the wow factor for FP status. You might find the sight interesting and impactful but the photo doesn't bring this out for me I'm afraid. – LucasT 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - Could be a bit sharper, but the composition works for me. I like the contrast of the Cimitero Monumentale with the modern buildings to its right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. It seems the building is cut in half at left. Yann (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that way because it is. You could let me know if I'm missing something, but the way I see it, the only question is whether the result of that is good. You find that it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow per Lucas. I get the feeling the goal was the contrast between the old and new buildings balanced by the similar form of the old building and the Unicredit Tower (as well as one of the other buildings whose names I know but cannot remember and do not have enough time to look up right now). But there's too much going on to get it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I only mildly support this photo, and there's no argument with "no wow", but what do you find overly complex about this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: If you imagine the flower bed and empty driveway/whatever space at the bottom cropped out, along with some of the left (maybe I'll have to make it in a note), you get an image with a lot more harmonious vertical forms, and the similarity I noted is more evident. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. See what I mean? Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Arguably less interesting, but yes, also simpler, and I do see what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:RPM abstract at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles (maybe there is a better category)
  •   Info All by WClarke -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I've been back at it trying more abstract photography, and have been evolving more in the previous weeks, including off of what I nominated last week. I this photograph I tried to make my subject more recognizable, while still bringing abstract elements into the photograph through the blur and distortion. As with my other photograph I nominated, this may see opposition, though thought it was worth sharing. Thanks. -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It works for me. It looks like a still from a time travelling movie. Exciting, ratteling, blurred. (And I feel bad opposing abstracts, I feel some have a place as FP) – LucasT 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question sorry but to me its only a unsharp picture? --Ralf Roleček 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ralf Roleček: Maybe it's not for everyone; it is experimental. The blur and distortion is for artistic and aesthetic effect, and I still think at the very least it is interesting to look at. I'm trying to explore something beyond what I've done before, and personally think I'm starting to get some interesting results. And though I respect your opinion, similar arguments ("it's only..." or "it's just a...") have been made for a long time against more abstract and conceptual art. Thanks. WClarke 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  Support ok, why not? --Ralf Roleček 07:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It becomes an abstract art photo if it somehow stimulates your fantasy. This is clearly telling me: "Houston, we have a problem." --cart-Talk 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, like Ralf, I just find this a blurred figurative photo, not something I really consider an abstraction. Also, the feelings that it gives me are eye strain and wanting to yell "Get out of the car! You're drunk!" Perhaps for a movie, this could be a useful blurring for a drunk driving scene, but for abstract photography, I want to see non-figurative shapes and lines. [shrug] That could be my assumptions and limitations speaking, but you could also call it something else: My personal taste. So I salute the fact of experimentation, but not this result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That is kind of the two places I've been stuck between: making it appear abstract enough to pass off a as abstract photography, while at the same time making sure it doesn't appear random or boring. Thanks. WClarke 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan. The drunk driving thing was one of my first thoughts... I've never done such a horrible thing myself of course...   lNeverCry 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not for me. Charles (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This might not be a good sharp image (don't think it was even planned as one) but it is giving an old sci-fi film feel. I personally liked it. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose might be a good photo, but not a FP for me. -- -donald- (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good photo for what it's trying to do, but I don't see it as being in scope. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Gibraltar Barbary Macaques BW 2015-10-26 14-07-28.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 18:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info all by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Stunning image and I feel it has FP potential. I have two problems: 1. It looks a bit soft, I would sharpen it more, there is detail to be revealed in the fur. 2. the powerlines cable car cables are distracting, sadly. I saw that they are easy to remove, and I did it for fun. Feel free to nominate this as an alternative if you like it, or if you allow I can nominate it myself:
     LucasT 19:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - To me, this is an FP as is. The power lines don't disturb me at all; they're part of the deliberately somewhat unsharp but sufficiently clear urban background. The slight softness of the monkeys is just that - slight softness. I wouldn't object to judicious sharpening, but I think they're quite clear enough, as this is not a species-identification photo but a touching urban scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The cables are probably a cable car, not power lines, but it is better without them. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, right, the slanted support structure barely visible is a telltale sign, lighter power lines don't require that. – LucasT 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The cables don't bother me since they follow the composition of the monkeys but there is room for a bit more light in the photo. The name of the file should also be fixed since it doesn't mention the main motif, the macaques. --cart-Talk 22:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'll   Support it, hoping that it might turn out a bit brighter. ;) It is such great image otherwise. --cart-Talk 17:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Love it! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The face of the left hand animal is blurred and I don't like the cables, nor the lighting. Charles (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support We can discuss the technical and compositional issues all we want, but the fact for me is that I can't get past that pose. I think we already know what the 2017 PotY will be, based on how the public votes. Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pena Palace Sintra.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info Pena National Palace. Sintra, Portugal. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great shot - unfortunately it's not up to the technical standards expected here, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, but the things that actually bother me somewhat about this photo are, in order, the unsharp evergreens that take up most of the foreground and the hazy grayish background. Yes, the palace could be clearer, too, but if it were 100% sharp, I still would be unlikely to support a feature if the foreground and background were identical to what's there now. I'd encourage you to take more photos in better light without unsharp foreground trees (or at least fewer of them) if you make another trip to Sintra. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 13:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Dllu - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good Alvesgaspar/The Photographer-style work by Dllu. A tad soft at full size, but full size is about as big as you could get without severely violating residents' privacy, and I really enjoy looking around the form of the photograph and its many differences within a theoretically uniformly boxy structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 09:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It look like a voyeur picture performed by myself --The Photographer 10:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see this as an unwarranted Peeping Tom intrusion into people's private property and surely must be against Wikipedia guidelines on privacy, especially since the address is given. We should not be promoting voyeur pictures. Charles (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Interesting. Have you made such comments before when similar photos were up for discussion at FPC? If not, what's different this time? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have commented on privacy issues several times before (and see current FPC). Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
IMHO It's inevitable, with the time, cameras censors are larger and photographs became very detailed. At some point it will be possible to observe the whole interior of any building. --The Photographer 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course intrusions become easier, and with increased detail comes new responsibilities. Why should we encourage this type of intrusion. If this was your flat would you want a community like Commons promoting an image of who is in your flat, what they are doing and what goodies you might have waiting to be stolen? Not me. Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Ambivalent While this is a good photo, I too get an uneasy feeling about this one. I have no problem with office buildings and I have supported a photo like this before (but commented that I felt like a perv peeping in on people's private life) where you could see people's living rooms and not many people, but this strikes me as having mostly the bedrooms facing this view and it is much, much more detailed and that feels like a step too far. If I'm at home relaxing in my bed, I would not want a photo of that as an FP. --cart-Talk 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's a valid point, and I'll think about it, but all but one person seems questionably recognizable unless you already know them, and the most recognizable person is on his porch at the lowest floor depicted. I don't like the "it's inevitable" argument, though. Is this an unwarranted and objectionable invasion of privacy? Let's have a discussion about that. I just might withdraw this nomination if there's enough objection or the arguments really convince me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination - To everyone who supported this photo, I'm sorry. I think the critics are right. If anyone wants to take over this nomination, feel free, but in that case, I think I must abstain, as I've concluded that my appreciation for this photograph as a work of art is a bit callous toward people with expectations of at least a greater degree of privacy within their own homes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for nominate this picture, however, I understand this point for pictures where "A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy"[1] , however, it's a very subjetive factor in this particular case --The Photographer 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for nominating this picture! I was a bit hesitant to upload it (even though it was taken two months ago) because of privacy concerns also, but my photography friends assured me it was okay. This was taken with a 50mm lens on full frame, and I think it should be fine. There is little reasonable expectation of privacy at a large window facing a busy city, especially when viewed by a lens whose field of view is similar to that of the human eye. But to focus on an individual one of these with a 300mm lens, or to crop the picture, however, may be a breach of privacy (though that sort of project has been attempted before, with great controversy: [2]). In any case, like Ikan, I was also drawn by the geometry of the somewhat brutalist building contrasting against the randomness of the windows, and indeed, I was inspired by Featured works by The Photographer. dllu (t,c) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it and upload it in commons because it's legal in your country. There are permutations. If you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort, however, it's only a subjective moral issue and not a legal rule. --The Photographer 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone for the mature discussion. Charles (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • dllu, what do you mean about the field of view being similar to that of the human eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A 50mm lens is considered a normal lens. It is a common adage to say that a normal lens has a similar field of view as the human eye (though in actuality the human eye's field of view is very wide but blurry outside of the fovea region). dllu (t,c) 04:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Where could you get this clear a view of bedrooms with a naked eye? Is the view this clear from across the street? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This was taken from 100 Van Ness Ave, a high rise residential building right across the street. dllu (t,c) 11:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • And is the view just as clear from there with the naked eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the buildings are fairly close. Here's a screenshot from Google Maps: [3]. Here's the approx field of view superimposed on Google maps: [4]. The two red lines are 40 degrees apart. The horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens is around 39 degrees, as per an online calculator [5]. There was a small amount of cropping in this photo. dllu (t,c) 12:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
But I don't know the rules or legislation of the area of the picture--Lmbuga (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Minor cyan CAs--Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  Comment (poor English) Sorry, this photo is IMO one of the best photos I have seen lately. If there is something personal or personal in the photo, it is not the purpose of presenting it. The photo does not care (it does not focus) for presenting any details. The important thing is the global vision.

It can not be considered intrusive when names and surnames are not used. Who is there recognizable?

You do not see it, but we're talking about freedom of expression. We speak of the freedom of expression of journalists; Of the right to information.--Lmbuga (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I think that the freedom of speech and to express yourself can be used in much better ways than to point a lens into unsuspecting people's bedrooms. --cart-Talk 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment very nice picture. Tus hijos de cinco años pueden saber lo que hacen sus amigos y ganarles millones de dólares en la bolsa" Que cabrones soir todos!!!

I want to continue with the nomination of this photoEdit

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo. Now I'm the nominator. Thanks.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I will duly   Abstain now. Lmbuga: Not nominating or supporting this picture for a feature in no way denies dllu freedom of expression. You'd have a stronger case if the photo were nominated for deletion and deleted, but even then, it would be a matter of policy rather than a way to prevent him from taking the photo and posting it elsewhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support as creator. dllu (t,c) 19:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I support all these nominations here, whichever is real and counts :) I get the slight weirdness factor but its such a fascinating view with cool geometric composition, combined with just the fascination of seeing the world from a different perspective... I get the complaints but I think it is zoomed out enough to skip the peeping tom look. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 16:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay so this is a really weird nomination, its quite likely my vote was after the period but given the confusion surrounding this one I'm going to IAR and just go for it EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 17:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– LucasT 12:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Lucas, your addition seems incorrect to me. Shouldn't all the votes from when I was still nominating this photo count? I think everyone assumed they would. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Ikan Kekek, I see what you mean. I edited my lengthy reply here and made a new FPC talk discussion about it, to clarify the rules for the future. – LucasT 16:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /– LucasT 08:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

EoRdE6's vote was not in any of the two voting periods so I excluded him from the count, Lmbuga's vote was between active voting windows, I included the vote anyway.LucasT 08:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


Ta bort utvald-status ifrån bilderEdit

Efterhand kan standarden för utvalda bilder ändras. Bilder som tidigare var tillräckligt bra, kanske inte längre anses vara det. Här listas bilder som du tycker inte längre förtjänar att vara utvalda bilder. Då behövs 2/3 majoritet (och minst 5 röster) som håller med om att ta bort utvald-statusen ifrån bilden. Om inte 2/3 av de röstande håller med om att ta bort den, så är bilden fortsatt utvald. Här röstar man med {{Keep}} (bilden förtjänar att kvarstå som utvald) or {{Delist}} (bilden förtjänar inte att kvarstå som utvald). När du nominerar en bild här, ta med länken till den ursprungliga utvald-bild-nomineringen (den finns under Länkar på bildens beskrivningssida. Använd den här länken för att lägga till en borttags-kandidat.

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Casa histórica de Tabatabaeis, Kashan, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 65.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2017 at 11:56:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info Interior courtyard of the Tabātabāei House, a historic house in Kashan, Iran. The house was built in the early 1880s by Ustad Ali Maryam, architect of the Borujerdis House and has 40 rooms, 4 courtyards, 4 basements and 3 windwards spread over a surface of almost 5,000 square metres (54,000 sq ft). All by me, Poco2 11:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 11:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Beautiful scene, but the wire against the sky is unfitting thematically, as there are no other modern objects around. I'd support without it. – LucasT 13:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The wire doesn't spoil anything for me: It's above the house and doesn't block anything. I wouldn't like for it to be removed, because another viewer at the scene would see it, too. That's modern life. I accept things for what they are more readily than many of the rest of the FPC habitue(e)s. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Prise de la ville et de la citadelle de Gand en six jours - Hall of Mirrors (Palace of Versailles).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 22:56:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I haven't been to Versailles since the early 90s. Is that how the painting looks, or should it be a bit more saturated? I ask this merely as a question, without implying anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment surely they have been restored,but i don't know when. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Understood. I'll live with this photo for a while and see if I get any wow from it later. So far, parts of the painting seem undersaturated and a bit glary to me, and while that may indeed be how it looked, it's not wowing me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Dalmatian fetching a tree branch.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 20:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
  •   Info all by me – LucasT 20:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportLucasT 20:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I immediately noticed this at thumbnail size on opening the page. I love the dynamism of the picture. By the way, we would call that a stick, not a tree branch. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like it, but can you do anything about the blown white bits? Charles (talk)
Charles, I already adjusted the levels in the RAW file so that there is a small white area and a small black area and not any extensive clipping. Examining the jpg, there is detail on its head, right next to the white point. I feel bringing highlight detail out even more would look unnatural, similar to snow photos. – LucasT 07:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support worth asking. Charles (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cool. --A.Savin 02:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Goood boy! (pant pant pant) Goooooooooood boy! Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well captured. --cart-Talk 09:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Mount Ararat and the Araratian plain (cropped).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 19:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:View to One World Trade Center.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 18:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I contacted the photographer and offered to edit it from the RAW file, if these remain the only issues. – LucasT 19:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Regretful   Oppose because of the lights. I get what the photographer intended, but the new WTC blends with the sky way too much to serve as the intended centerpiece. The wonderful contrast with the golden reflections unfortunately only serve to exaggerate the issue. KennyOMG (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sadly, I have to agree with KennyOMG. This wouldn't have been an issue if the pic wasn't so heavily saturated. I downloaded it and desaturated as much as 36% before it looked more normal and the tower contrasted very nicely with the sky, the pic also looked clearer. Taking a look at this user's photos most of them are the same way so maybe it's a setting on her camera. I would gladly support a desaturated and vertical-fixed version though. --cart-Talk 21:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I nominated this picture for QI (it passed), but I'm not sure about FP. cart, I'd like to see your edited version. Olga1969, is it OK with you if we have a chance to look at cart's edit of your photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think we can wait until Lucas has got a response from Olga. As nominator he is now aware of this and may act on it when/if he reprocesses the file from RAW. I can put my version in my dropbox later if you want to check it out. --cart-Talk 22:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose this version because as Kenny points out correctly it was overcooked—it looks like it should be used in an ad (not that that's always a dealbreaker). I would be interested in cart's version. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment As others already pointed out this picture deserves a careful postprocessing and could then certainly become FP. --Code (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination For now I think it's tidier to close this and renominate later when the verticals, tilt, noise and oversaturation are fixed by someone, preferably working from the RAW file. – LucasT 16:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7684.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 16:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info Praying Jew at Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem - all by -- Ralf Roleček 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ralf Roleček 16:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too many distracting elements in the composition that look not clear to me --The Photographer 16:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Regretful   Oppose - This is a great photo of a man, but I have to agree with The Photographer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per The Photographer and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Common blue damselfly (Enallagma cyathigerum) immature male.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 14:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Thanks. Great job. Your version is on top now. Charles (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Forested hills in Lysekil in fog - B&W.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 13:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
  •   Info The ridges of the hills in Bohuslän can produce some striking scenery at times. These are the hills between two fjords, geological formations that are the south part of the landscape more associated with Norway. The color version was not very different from this B&W, so converting it was only natural. All by me -- cart-Talk 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I   Support the nomination. I'm undecided on whether I like the B&W or color version better, but I think that's only because the color version has more light in the middleground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Another image for the "walls of a psychiatrist's office" category.   Daniel Case (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Rats! I should not have given up my copyright for this, psychiatrics usually do very well and I could have charged a bundle for it. ;) --cart-Talk 19:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I would have preferred the color version for the blue tint, but grayscale (for most images B&W is a misnomer) works too. – LucasT 16:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Forest Path.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 13:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Lathronniel - uploaded by Lathronniel - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment File name needs to be changed, this is not a "Forest Path" but a "Forest Stream". --cart-Talk 13:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice photo, but not in my opinion outstanding enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose I hate to drag this one out but there are just so many things wrong with it that properly naming it won't fix. It's cluttered compositionally, the white balance is thrown off by the preponderance of orange leaves in the image and was not corrected, and on the whole it's as unsharp as the aperture setting would suggest it would be. We have a higher standard for this sort of picture. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:A Portrait of Karim Khan Zand on Horseback.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 06:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Low resolution. Not very sharp. Poor condition of painting. Sorry but this is a long way from being one of our finest reproductions of artworks. -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Prague 07-2016 Metro img5 LineB Andel.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2017 at 00:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Red Dragonlets (Erythrodiplax fusca) in Botanical Garden of São Paulo, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 22:32:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

it was a union technique of join 25 images to remove the noise. IMHO I can't get more size and quality because lens. I don't know why ask for more size if the camera can't give more and the fp requeriment size is only 2 mp. I am in process to buy a D7200, however, I can't understand where we are going asking for more and more size and forcing to the photographer community to get a quality imposible without a last line dslr machine. Thanks for your commet, I am open too to receive some recommendations and not only criticism to improve my quality. --The Photographer 01:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I was harsh in my choice of words. There are quite a few 'how to' guides online for dragonflies, the most important of which is to know that they will return to the same perch so you can be ready with the right light, nice bokeh, appropriate camera settings and a good stance so you can use slowish shutter speed. I try to use a monopod, but tripod even better. Jee takes excellent images using flash, but I'm not keen. Charles (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
You don't need tell sorry, you are a especialized photographer in this area. My comment was more a general comment, also, It was a bit frustrating trying to get clear pictures yes, however it's not somethig personal with your comment. I respect your comment a lot, perhaps in the process of write my comment I did it wrong and look like a complaint comment, however, it is more a general size critique that many others have commented here, excessive fanaticism for super size images. --The Photographer 13:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles and his knowledge and experience in this kind of photography. Daniel Case (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would like to know what Jee thinks about the focus issue with the tail. I think the exact species is not identified on page so that may be an issue too wrt FP status. Compare File:Red faced dragonlet (Erythrodiplax fusca) male.JPG for similar species. The insect seems rather over-saturated red, though that might be the correct lighting, it might also be a sign the image has been overcooked for saturation. Wrt the size, I don't think Charles was suggesting that there is an issue with getting FP from your 12MP camera, just that cropping does rapidly reduce file size and so good technique is required to get close-up photos of insects. [You've been here long enough to know that 2MP is a minimum necessary but not sufficient requirement -- being above 2MP is no guarantee of acceptance and in fact I'd be interested if we have much recent promotions below 5MP] Anyway, I disagree the image needs cropped, and the lovely smooth background is a feature of the photo. Not all our insect photos need to be close crops, and I think sometimes we neglect to find beauty outside of the obvious subject. I would be interested to know more about the technique mentioned about 25 frames. Was this taken on a tripod? Surely the branch and insect were moving. So how can one align 25 frames in that circumstance? -- Colin (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
    1. We need to identify the species first. Posting at Dragonflies & Damselflies may helps. There are a lot of species in this genus. 2. It seems in backlit; thorax and tip of abdomen in shadows. 3. The red seems OK for me. 4. Both, tight framing and giving some room around the subject is the photographer's choice. This too works. Jee 11:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear Colin and Jk, thanks for your review. The images was taken using tripod and I used your ISO removal technique joining each image in photoshop with 100/25 % of opacity for each layer. About the color I applied a bit color saturation and for your comment it was too strong. Finally, With respect to species identification, I did a personal investigation and it can be a Erythrodiplax fusca, however, I have not been able to contact an expert for this identification --The Photographer 11:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, likely a mature male E. fusca as you can see the remains of the blue pruinescence on the abdomen. I think your Photoshop technique (new to me!) is probably losing too much definition in the hairs Charles (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Charles, the technique was talked about here (at least that's where it started) if you are interested. The loss of def on the hairs is probably more due to movement since the trick is used to reveal smaller objects. --cart-Talk 12:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This technique is the best noise reduction technique that I know, basically a miracle --The Photographer 13:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes. I remember. My Canon 70D has a low light setting that does this in Camera, but I've never got it to work properly. I can't imagine many days in the field where you wouldn't get degradation of sharpness of odonata hairs. I'll nominate a traditional image for comparison. Charles (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Benoît Guillon confirmed that this is Erythrodiplax fusca. Jee 12:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Thanks for help me in the identification procedure. BTW, @Colin: I rollbacked any vibrance/saturation to the original image (now it has the original colors without any change) and I added some sharpening in the abdomen @Charlesjsharp:. --The Photographer 13:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:BalnearioAlfonsina-LaPerlaMDP-feb2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 22:23:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me Ezarateesteban 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I enjoy looking at this. There's a nice counterpoint between the - what do they call those? tents? - in the foreground and middleground and the buildings in the further middleground and background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The lighting is too flat for me. Would be better to take early morning or late afternoon. -- King of ♠ 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ah, the gilded terrors of mass tourism --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support King is right about the lighting but I find the sea of tents irresistible. Daniel Case (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Albert Kuvezin 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 19:09:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:U 871 Ölsta.tifEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 13:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments_and_memorials
  •   Info created by Creator:Bengt A. Lundberg - uploaded by Biltvätt - nominated by Ainali -- Ainali (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ainali (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me this photo is more of VI than FP here on Commons. Speaking of the photo itself, there is the very large black shadow behind the stone in sharp contrast to the very brightly colored stone which does not make it a good wow-y photo. As a representative for rune stones, I don't like it at all. This stone is brought from its original context to the open-air museum (Skansen) where it has been painted in garish colors that could only have been fashionable in the 90s. The paint is only for the benefit of the tourists at Skansen, to make the markings more visible. There is no evidence that the stones were ever painted in this way. For me this feels very much like a sort of "Viking Disneyland". A nice photo of a Swedish rune stone would be something along the lines of this or this, IMO. --cart-Talk 18:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment The section en:Runestone#Colour does not seem to be as sure as you are, but I'll check with experts at the Swedish National Heritage Board tomorrow about the coloring. Ainali (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that paint wasn't used, just not such bright, opaque colors as these. The true pigments and the medium they were mixed with (giving the paint a translucent quality) could not have covered the stone in the way modern paints do. --cart-Talk 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I just talked to some colleagues at the Swedish National Heritage Board that are runestone experts and they say that is possible that this is how runestones looked back in the day, there are runestones from Öland found with traces of this sort of coloring (however not on runestones of the stonetype in this particular stone). In 1991 this painting was done with red lead and white lead, colors available long before the vikings (your link is to a rock art picture which is thousands of years older) both to show how they may have looked like and to see if it would preserve the stone better from lichen. BUT, regardless of the accuracy of the painting of the stone, this is how the runestone looks like today and it is a notable object (with articles in 5 languages already) and I want to remind you that this is not a candidate for Valued Image for runestones in general. It clearly has value according to the Featured picture criteria just in documenting this object as such. Ainali (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making the effort to talk to the Heritage Board. My comment was based on discussions I've had with the paint restoration expert at Gotland Museum regarding their rune stones (or rather picture stones) so it's scholar against scholar. I linked to that other image to show how paint/pigments using non-modern biding materials looked, that has not changed over time. As for VI, I was suggesting it could be a VI for this particular stone (and I really think it should be that too), not all of them. BUT, as you say, this is a photo of the stone today and I still think it is far from the artistic photo that is a requirement for FPs here with the wow factor and all. FPs on different language Wikipedia is another thing, where a photo is more judged on its strictly encyclopedic value. Perhaps you could ask ArildV to take a photo of the stone, he is a master of good lighting and would do this beautifully, I'm sure. --cart-Talk 08:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Picture stones are different things (and usually much older), so it's not really scholar aginst scholar, rather two scholars talking about separate phenomenon. Runestones : a colourful memory is recommended reading which supports that runestones were painted this way (but now we are really far off topic for the FP discussion, all this should be irrelevant for how votes are casted). Ainali (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • We stray off topic all the time. ;) Anyway, I've nominated the pic for VI. --cart-Talk 11:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The nomination hasn't been made visible at VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ikan, I fumbled the last step. This is probably one reason you shouldn't edit at work... you get distracted. ;) --cart-Talk 17:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. From my own minimal experience with Swedish runestones, I recall them being sparsley painted compared to this, and for that they actually looked better on cloudy days ("Viking Disneyland"   ... yup, that's about right). In fact it seems like this picture was punched up a bit much—it's not oversaturated, but it still seems like it's trying a bit too hard. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The image has not been digitally manipulated but is scanned from an analogue photo. It is taken by Bengt A Lundberg in his service of the Swedish National Heritage Board with the purpose of documenting it so one should expect it to be a faithful representation and not an artistic rendering of reality. Ainali (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
A scanned print ... OK, that explains it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Aiguille-du-Midi-sundown.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 12:45:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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

- Nice photo, but the absolute minimum size for FP (and QI) is 2 megapixels, and normally, photos anywhere near that small are never featured, nowadays, unless they are incredibly fantastic or historically important. Please read the "Guidelines for nominators" above and Commons:Image guidelines before you nominate another photo. Good choice, though, otherwise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Beijzelde vruchten van een Esdoorn (Acer). Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2017 at 06:22:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Acer #Family Sapindaceae.
  •   Info Icy fruits of a Maple (Acer). Location, Natuurterrein The Famberhorst. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The DOF is quite shallow, rendering parts of the subject blurry I would have liked to see sharp. I also find the light not the best, it looks a bit dull. There is no wow factor for me, because I feel many photographers have a similar shot in their collection when starting macro photography. The ice itself is also not the best looking IMO—while I'm no expert—it looks partly molten, with many small rounded blobs of ice. The centered composition with the OOF branch crossing the main subject is also not optimal. – LucasT 07:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - What's in focus is great, but not enough is in focus, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni) male head.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 17:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info This is a renomination using a (less tight) crop of the the original file processed by The Photographer, hopefully without the defects of the previous version. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I find this quite an impressive closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the sharpness and background are all fine, but my previous reason for opposing is still there: "I would have liked to see a bit more of the bird's neck. Now it looks as if it is striving to keep its head above the bottom line of the photo. With such a heavy beak, almost (vertical) centering the eye is not enough, the centre of gravity of the subject is too low." --cart-Talk 11:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think this crop is actually worse than the original one. It introduced additional space at the top and right, but what is missing is some en:Lead room at the bottom and left. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose So I've looked at many bird FPs to judge how this one stacks up. My strongest argument so far is that it crops out too much on the bottom while the headroom is not containing much information about the environment the bird is in (grass? green mud? Zoo?). Comparing with FPs of birds with blurred background, most of them at least have more bird to look at in them, but to be fair some are in fact very similar in composition. Going along is that the lighting is good but IMO not adding any excitement, the whole image looks a bit grey and unprocessed (the file history shows that it originates from a OOC RAW, and the subsequent versions never added saturation), so if this would be improved together with the composition I would be willing to reconsider. I often read that FP needs wow and I believe FPs should showcase both excellent photography and subjects. The subject has potential, but I can't find enough aspects of good photography, it's just a unprocessed telephoto shot under diffuse light with green background. – LucasT 17:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Lucas and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Egyptian Scribe - Louvre January 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2017 at 19:45:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.