Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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:2016.08.23.-01-Vogelstangsee Mannheim--Weidenjungfer-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 10:51:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Покинута обсерваторія.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 02:29:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Paxzcasso1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 02:19:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created and uploaded by Paxzcasso - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Pha Diao Dai ("Lonely Cliff"), Khao Yai National Park, Thailand
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, only thing I'd wish for is a tad bit more space at the bottom, but let's not be greedy here. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as long as the CAs are not cleaned --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Heavy CA and general lack of detail.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Wow, I don't think I've ever seen this much CA in a photo before. Not sure it can be fixed without severely harming the quality of the photo. --cart-Talk 08:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Guépier d'Europe ichkeul (Merops apiaster) European Bee-eater.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 17:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I wish the bottom crop wasn't so close to the tail feather. The room at top is perfect. Daphne Lantier 18:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it better now?. El Golli Mohamed 19:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 20:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality, though colours might be perked up a bit. I would crop it square, but that doesn't influence my vote. Charles (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 23:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive that El Golli Mohamed won all of the top 8 places in WLE Tunisia 2016; with uploads like this you might be able to do it again this year -- Thennicke (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Nice colours and bokeh; I'm happy with the crop as it is. —Bruce1eetalk 07:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Professional and well-managed photograph of a beautiful specimen with a high encyclopedic value, and not like the Colin image of the year (just kidding this last comment) --The Photographer 11:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Common kingfisher, October 2015, Osaka VI.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 17:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016.09.24.-06-Felsenberg-Berntal Leistadt--Mauerfuchs-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:43:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

You should take the same measure for estimating your own pictures as other people's pictures. --Hockei (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The head is not the focus of this image. It makes sense to aim for the head when taking an image of most animals and insects, but in this situation I don't think the head is important -- Thennicke (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose I disagree. The head is always vital for this sort of insect photo. Just look at all the successful FPs. Charles (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.09.24.-05-Felsenberg-Berntal Leistadt--Mauerfuchs-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Reine Lofoten 2009.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:24:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thennicke, I don't think the composition is "arbitrary". Just as wide as the photographer could get. The photo is uncropped and the focal length is 18mm from an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens on an APS-C camera. I agree it would be nice to have a little more width, but not a deal breaker. The weather and colours are great, if it was a more modern photo with more detail than 6MP, it might still be a winner for me. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. The crop is fine, IMO, but Ximonic's picture is better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Moving backwards to find a new angle (zooming with feet), or even creating a panorama (as it appears Ximonic did), are almost always possibilities. I see no reason why that couldn't have been done here, and I would have supported if the composition was better. And of course I don't mean to be harsh with my choice of words; it is otherwise a great image. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Kreuzgang, Kapelle -- 2017 -- 7218-24.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:09:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Grand Canyon Horseshoe Bend.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 14:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Update: I'm no longer at a loss - I've been using too high a sharpening radius :D -- Thennicke (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm fine with the bottom; stop down any further and using a 50mm prime on a 5DS R would have been pointless. -- King of ♠ 02:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Milseburg. The unsharp foreground surely adds nothing to the picture; it only subtracts from it, and is in my opinion disqualifying. If you crop it out, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the foreground does add to the image, even if it is unsharp (since the foreground is not the subject that should be irrelevant anyway. Also, per Peulle below, it's impossible without focus stacking). The reason the inclusion of the foreground is important IMO that it allows the curve of the river and rocks to be uninterrupted. One of the hardest things to do is avoiding those kinds of "cuts" in an image and I suspect that's what Thomas was going for here -- Thennicke (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I see the point made by Milseburg and Ikan Kekek, but since the foreground curves upwards to the right, cropping it out would mean cutting off the river: no fix possible without focus stacking. Main subject is clear and sharp, the level of detail is amazing for such a large photo, you can even see birds in the sky clearly outlined and power line towers in the distance. Slight noise but hardly noteworthy given the high resolution.--Peulle (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Fünf Höfe - Hanging Gardens, Munich, April 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 12:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mallnitz Seebach Seitenarm 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 12:00:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Brown-lipped snail (Cepaea nemoralis) 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 09:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  •   Info Poor old molluscs don't even get their own category on FPC. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not very big, but nice light and colors. --Yann (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Some chroma noise and general lack of sharpness in places - for such a low resolution image, I don1t think that's good enough for FP.--Peulle (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Around head not sharp and not enough demarcation to the background. --Hockei (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Heteropoda venatoria-Kadavoor-2017-05-22-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 07:20:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • The adult has a flat, brown body 2 to 2.5 cm (0.8 to 1 inch) long, 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 inches) wide, including the legs. I saw once it paralyzed a Common house gecko with a single bite. Will bite us too if taken in hand. Supposed to be painful; but harmless. Jee 09:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Wandeling over het Hulshorsterzand-Hulshorsterheide. Hierdensche Beek 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 04:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Arches Fingers IMG 0058 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 21:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Machu Picchu, Perú, 2015-07-30, DD 47.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 20:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info View of the ancient houses of Machu Picchu houses, Urubamba Province, Cusco Region, today Peru. The 15th-century Inca citadel, abandoned one century later, is situated in the Sacred Valley on a mountain ridge 2,430 metres (7,970 ft) above sea level. All by me, Poco2 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice clean shot with great detail. Atsme 📞 23:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent, it can't be lack --The Photographer 11:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 14:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support A fresh look at a familiar subject; considering the cliché view from the Inca Trail so predominates, it's almost like I've never seen this before. I particularly like the bushed tourists—been there (well, not exactly, but that sort of place), done that. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 15:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks tilted. The people aren't standing/sitting straight. Suggest nearly 2° rotation and a little vertical perspective correction may help. -- Colin (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Seconding the tilt argument. I doesn't need as much as 2° (ccw) but def can use 1°+. Indifferent on the perspective correction though. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Larrun - Arroyo 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 18:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Minimal oppose I don't know ... I can see why you took it, but it just doesn't come together for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral If it was a sunshine weather, it would be perfect. -- -donald- (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I would disagree, the cloudy weather is perfect for this scene. -- King of ♠ 02:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Outcropping of layered stone in the background is nice, but overall, I don't consider this a featurable image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Lotus JNTBGRI.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 17:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info Sacred Lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) at Jawarlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Gardens and Research Intitute, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India. All by Shishr -- Shishirdasika (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Shishirdasika (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Qualified support Flower is nice but the background is more of a distraction than I wish it were. Daniel Case (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background (the green leaves) is disturbing me. Also no wow. Common composition. --Hockei (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The green leaves are ok, but the brown one is disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Neptuul (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:100 Lire - Citta del Vaticano - Giovanni XXIII.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 15:04:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Saint-Jean-de-Buèges cf10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 09:56:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Like the simple yet beautiful village scene. Jee 13:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Pretty. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry to introduce a discordant note: This is a very good picture, of course, and informative, but I don't find the composition (or perhaps the motif, as fully depicted) outstanding enough for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Ikan. Daphne Lantier 21:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A QI but doesn't stand out from other landscapes, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very interesting. --Milseburg (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must agree with Ikan. Whilst the countryside is beautiful, I don't think this composition compares to, say, File:Vieussan, Hérault 12.jpg (which, by the way, is one of my favourite images on this whole site) -- Thennicke (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Lycidae-Kadavoor-2017-05-22-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 06:59:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures//Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info Lycidae with a Cunaxidae. It's most likely a larva, but there's also s small chance it could be a larviform female. See the quoted comment of the expert in file description for more details. All by Jkadavoor -- Jee 06:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jee 06:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question It's certainly an FP-quality photo. The lack of clear categorization seems unavoidable, and I have every plan to vote for this, regardless, but a point for clarification: Is the pink mite or whatever from the Cunaxidae family? Shouldn't that category be included at the bottom of the file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes; both the experts commented in that Facebook link (Michael Geiser and Jayaram Devang) are subject experts of Coleoptera and Trombidiformes respectively. It is difficult to find the ID for a lower level, especially for a female or larva of such a small subjects. I added Category:Cunaxidae too as four people already confirmed that ID. Jee 08:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC) BTW, this picture has 146 likes, mostly from subject experts in a subject specific group.  
  •   Support shame about the id problem, but the mite makes it. 09:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
So mite makes right?   Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Alrite, you mite be rite, if a bit trite. Jee found a good no-bite, flash-lite site at the rite hite at nite without much of a fite. Quite. Charles (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  Jee 09:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:SFMasonStreet.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 05:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done Category fixed. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I doubt my view will be popular here, but I like the shade and find the shade in the foreground and light in the middleground and background refreshing, because the shadow isn't black and I still see the various colors of the houses. I may have a slight bias, because I like San Francisco and this kind of scene, including the shadows, is relaxing to me as a scene that accurately represents San Francisco at a non-foggy time or place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The more I look at it, the more I like the composition. Normally you'd end up with an unbalanced image in pointing your camera at a scene in this way, but the taller buildings on the left actually make it quite nicely balanced. And we could argue about the contrast being overdone but I think it's tasteful as it is. But @KennyOMG: please add a category. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile. Would like hear more opinions on how to consider this types of old works prior to vote. Jee 15:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing really makes this stand out from other San Francisco cityscapes, and the color looks a little off to me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the idea that someone has attempted to take a panoramic image of San Francisco from one of its hills, but this shot is definitely not exceptional enough out of what can be really done. The composition is too busy and the captured buildings are uninteresting except for the houses on the right side depicting the city's traditional and recognisable architectural style. For example, one can get to Telegraph Hill for a nice shot of the Transamerica Pyramid with its surrounding buildings. From the description, I suppose the idea was to depict Mason Street, which could have been captured in a variety of better ways (e.g. the intersection between Mason Street and Washington Street with the Cable Car Museum in the corner), but it seems like there is not much of it. I also tend to agree that the sky is a bit blown, especially with the clouds above the top of the buildings on the right side.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment, @Kiril Simeonovski:, however I think there's some misunderstanding here. Sometimes a picture is just a picture with whatever happens to be in on, and not the be-all and end-all of a given subject. This was never meant to be the definitive visual representation of SF, nor of Mason St. It just happened to be taken in SF/on Mason St, therefore the name. Obv if I wanted to take a pic of the TransAm Pyramid or something else I would have. Similarly the northern part of Mason is a completely different beast. As for what makes SF SF: I think if you take away the immediately recognizable landmarks (Pyramid, Bridge, Cable car) then it's the hills, the houses, the Bay and the fog. This pic actually covers 3 of those 4. Having said that I always liked this because I considered it a pretty pic, nothing else. ;) As for the sky being blown, I'm not a fan of compressing the whole dynamics into the midtones, you can see it on my other photos too. (eta: panorama it is not, 35mm on full frame with top&bottom cropped) -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @KennyOMG: With all due respect, you were definitely trying to capture an interesting view of the city; unfortunately, it did not end into something that wows me enough for an FP. I don't intend to see the things mentioned in my previous comment in order to support an image from San Francisco, but they are just a sort of things that could make a featurable composition in my humble opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Cart & Daniel. Daphne Lantier 21:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination

File:Margaret Hamilton.gifEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 17:36:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info Margaret Hamilton standing next to the navigation software that she and her MIT team produced for the Apollo Project (1 January 1969). Created by Draper Laboratory - uploaded by Girona7 - nominated by Tino -- Tino (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It is a famous and iconic image, and the technical quality should be good enough (I hope being a grayscale is not a problem). -- Tino (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for nominate this image (maybe need a format image change). BTW I uploaded a restaured jpg version, however, I don't underestand why the contrast look different --The Photographer 18:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The only difference I'm seeing between the two versions is that in the restored version, a few spots were removed and a scratch was taken out. I'd support substituting that version, but it's not a big deal to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support this version. The restored version looks unnaturally smooth, with the fine details blurred by NR. -- King of ♠ 03:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - works for me. Atsme 📞 03:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 06:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I was searching around for this image the other day and couldn't seem to find it, so thanks for nominating it. It's a good one. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would support the restored JPEG instead. Yann (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the enthusiasm and the sheer joy of having completed a difficult project that this picture conveys. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Tino and Daniel Case. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 21:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support WClarke 05:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Nikola Shishevski Matka.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 15:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Basotxerri, while the quality here is certainly borderline, QIC is not a requirement for FP and has its own standards which permit "incredible scenery" to compensate for technical shortcomings. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The graininess makes it look more painterly to me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Suffering from processing and low JPG quality. But the image is good and not too bad at 6 megapixels. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Numida meleagris - Heidelberg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 06:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Galliformes
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support What a background! Jee 06:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me, a very routine picture of a bird. QI possibly, but not FP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The background is too busy and insufficiently blurred. -- King of ♠ 03:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I made the photo especially because of the background. --Llez (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support No, it's not sublime or sophisticated, it is happy, over-the-top whimsical, gaudy like your favorite Aunt's Victorian majolica pottery vases. That's an art form too and should be represented at FP. --cart-Talk 06:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only average technical quality and composition. Charles (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support brightly --Neptuul (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel --Hockei (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the background. Wish some flowers weren't wilted though. -- Colin (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel Case and Charles.--Peulle (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2016 Pałac w Wojanowie 7.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 21:34:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great but there's some kind of dust spot above the castle, I've left a note. --Code (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. This is a great view of an impressive building, only wish the shadow weren't there. -- King of ♠ 05:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weaker support than King. Not only is the shadow distracting, there are some borderline blown areas on the castle facade. Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    I noticed that the facade looked weird as well, and was in fact about to weak oppose over that. But I downloaded the file and found that the detail was there. And not just that the values weren't 255, which can be faked by dragging the highlights slider to recover data that's not even there, but actual detail which I revealed by dropping exposure even further. But the exposure definitely could have been better; I would have done 15 stops (equivalent of 1/500s at f/8 at ISO 100) rather than the 14⅓ used here. -- King of ♠ 03:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I don't mind the shadows, they make the foreground interesting, but the building is too bright. --cart-Talk 06:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't believe in "too bright"; it's good to use the colour space to its full extent (obviously without clipping) -- Thennicke (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Maire (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don´t mind shadows or brightness but the branches hiding part of the building is disturbing. --Milseburg (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Common blue damselflies (Enallagma cyathigerum) mating composite.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 19:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • No I didn't get it, Jee. I was on 100mm macro, so very close, and they flew off. Charles (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh. But you captured some wonderful moments! (Sometimes, it takes a lot of time to get coupled. Sometimes the male needs to change the perch and try again.) Jee 13:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:PogledKonPrespaOdPelister.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 18:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Fluss-Seeschwalbe im Vogelschutzgebiet Federseeried (DE-7923-401) beim Fischfang03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 17:39:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Sterna
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Another protected area within close reach from my home is the European Reserve "Federseeried". Approximately 200 bird species are found here at different times of the year. About 15-20 pairs of the Common tern breed here. When waiting for them to get food for the offspring, I had to make a calculation: Every bird goes hunting about every 30 mins. It'll be successful about every fifth swoop. My camera will be in the right position and fully focused on the bird about every 20th time (as they are so superfast!). Fully focused doesn't necessarily mean the bird has caught something. This should tell you the image you see is a nugget... -- AWeith (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great capture! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Love that bird. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great capture! Atsme 📞 21:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I voted for this at QIC and am glad to see it here. PumpkinSky talk 22:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent AWeith trademark tern. ;) --cart-Talk 06:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 10:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 15:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Wurzacher Ried (NSG Nr. 4.035), Frühe Adonisjungfern bei der Eiablage.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 17:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Coenagrionidae_.28Narrow-winged_damselflies.29
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by AWeith -- AWeith (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment No need to travel far for exciting wildlife! The moor of the Wurzacher Ried is in bicycle distance from my home and provides a plethora of scenarios. This was a particularly well lit place and crowded with damselflies.
  •   Oppose Unfortunataly, they are all blurred. Charles (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. Excellent and would be really useful as a VI, but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The two pairs on left are in focus. The flying pair on right make the place very dynamic. I don't think it is possible to get all in focus in such an event. Jee 02:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I've decided to change my vote, because Jee is right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No. none of the pairs are in focus - and 1/200 sec makes that impossible. Charles (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I suppose it's only the female (the bottom one) from two pairs that's pretty well in focus. But I generally agree with Jee and cart's viewpoints. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not only per Charles, but the composition is rather chaotic, making it hard for the subject to stand out from the background. A VI likely, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - excellent capture of a very chaotic event performed by the very skittish. Atsme 📞 03:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit messy, but making new life is a messy business and how often do we see this many pairs of these critters in one photo. The red also makes them stand out sufficiently from the background. --cart-Talk 06:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Common picture - no wow. And I don't see a sharp dragonfly. --Hockei (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Chandelier of the Palais Garnier, Paris 6 July 2015.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 16:03:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Joe deSousa - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Strong chromatic aberration --The Photographer 16:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per the Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose ...and cropped too tight. Atsme 📞 03:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per the Photographer and Atsme. I did a test to see if the CA could be washed away, but it's just too much and would require some near-archeological work to get rid of. Shouldn't the Chagall paintings be mentioned in the description/categories? --cart-Talk 06:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Capparis spinosa Ichkeul National Parc.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 13:29:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Winterswijk, Woold, Berenschot's Watermolen -- 2017 -- 0250.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 05:25:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I like the composition. It like every photograph: There are different views and opinions. If the photograph is not OK as FPC, I'll withdraw it within the next days. In my opinion, it is worth a try to nominate it. --XRay talk 08:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I'm not feeling it, but that's OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support good composition ;-) Albertus teolog (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A striking juxtaposition. Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Libélula (Tramea sp), Cerro Brujo, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 145.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 21:36:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Hmmm, after comparing both images several times I decided to   Support this though the end segment (S10) is out of focus which is very important in identification purposes. As KoH and Cart commented the light is far better here. The other one seems in backlit. Jee 14:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful creamy bokeh. -- King of ♠ 04:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The focus may not be 100%, but the light and colors are irresistable. The bokeh does interfere a bit with the wings, but combined with this posture, the now gossamer wings makes this a fairytale photo. --cart-Talk 12:52, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, exactly what I was thinking, just stated more clearly. Daniel Case (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Jee says, the end of the abdomen is out of focus. The other image was better quality. Charles (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Plus, plus, plus - great shot with excellent detail where it counts. Atsme 📞 03:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The bright background is too distracting for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the loveliness of the composition and bokeh make up for the slight unsharpness -- Thennicke (talk) 09:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Nyceryx continua continua MHNT CUT 2010 0 131 Itatiaia National Park Brazil ventral.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 20:02:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Nyceryx continua continua MHNT CUT 2010 0 131 Itatiaia National Park Brazil dorsal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 19:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Private Zeno W. Muhl serving with the 429th Engineers as a truck driver.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 19:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Nick Parrino, uploaded and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support US truck driver in the Persian Corridor carrying supply to Russia, 1943. Irresistible smile. The "scars" on the truck door are telling about the road condition. -- Yann (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not "scars", that's just mud splatter. My car used to look the same when I lived on Gotland! :) --cart-Talk 19:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Poor car! Yann (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice historic value but no wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. The expression is nice but the composition is haphazard, with the antenna cut off halfway and the left crop at an awkward place as well. -- King of ♠ 04:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Young beech in spruce forest.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 10:28:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
  •   Info All by me, -- cart-Talk 10:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 10:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Cautious   Support here. It's extremely chaotic but strangely relaxing at the same time. Perhaps, though, in this case less would have been more and I wish there was a version without the sapling/bush in the center. Would be a perfect U frame with increasing visibility through the branches as the eye moves upward. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm not allowed to cut it down. :) Anyway, it was the green glow of the sapling that guided me to the clearing. I like how the soft, green young leaves contrast against the dark spruces with all their spiky branches surrounding the sapling. --cart-Talk 17:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ofc I didn't mean you should have. :) Was just thinking out loud that even if the salping was the reason to take this picture, it might have been more without the sapling in the end, and how weird that is. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Kenny. It helps that the assortment of tree species reminds me of the kind of forests that, in my area, I have to hike up to mountaintops to experience (although for Norway spruce in that picture, substitute balsam fir in the Northeastern US/Eastern Canada montane boreal forest). The idea of the beech sapling striving to the light makes this work, overcoming the discordant downed tree at the bottom (which, of course, could also tell us how daunting the beech's aspirations are). Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely lights! Jee 14:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light green leaves at the bottom are lovely but occupy too little of the frame (I think 2/3 would be better). The rest of the image just isn't very interesting. -- King of ♠ 23:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Army Athletics Long Jumper at The Inter Corps Athletics Competition at Tidworth, Wiltshire MOD 45152793 (cropped).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 08:31:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Aerial view of the London Eye. MOD 45146076.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2017 at 08:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Paul A'Barrow taken from a Lynx Mk8, in use in three different languages on articles about the London Eye - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality: unsharp, chromatic aberrations, overexposed whites. Interesting view, but not unique nowadays, could be taken with a drone too, and a good drone would provide better quality (if correctly exposed + postprocessed) --A.Savin 11:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Wood sorrel after rain.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2017 at 20:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Caboclo by Jean-Baptiste Debret 1834.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2017 at 18:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done I'm sorry for the spanish description, however, now we need a english native --The Photographer 20:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Mild support I added an English translation courtesy of Google. I'm sure this digitization could be improved on in the future but for now it's good enough. Daniel Case (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The English text should be edited, but I'm content to simply support, for now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not too familiar with the process that gave birth to it, but it's an incredible picture for its historic significance, composition and what it depicts. I believe the latter is what qualifies it to be a FP. Atsme 📞 21:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Atsme. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Yacht Astor May 17th 2017 D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2017 at 03:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Praha Old Jewish Cemetery Panorama 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2017 at 08:44:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info During the more than three centuries in which it was in active use, the cemetery continually struggled with the lack of space. Piety and respect for the deceased ancestors does not allow the Jews to abolish old graves. For this reason, twelve layers of graves now exist, giving the cemetery the shape of a flat hill. As new levels were added it was necessary either to lay over the gravestones associated with the older (and lower) graves to protect them, or else to elevate the stones to the new, higher surface. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, in Israel, if they find old Jewish graves during the construction of a highway, the highway normally gets rerouted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 14:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very awkward crop. Charles (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Very delicate and nice light. My immediate impression was that is is a very busy and cluttered composition, but I guess that is the whole point as the grave stones are not that ordered due to the very high density of graves. The light brown building a bit to the right in the bg need some vertical alignment lines in Hugin, it is tilted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Charles.--Jebulon (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose i dislike building behind, also shadow-sun combo isnt so good, i would focus just on the stones-nekropolas. --Mile (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The cool tones actually work well for an urban cemetery. Daniel Case (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support real urban --Neptuul (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 15:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Heres looking at you.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2017 at 02:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  •   Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Image is exceptional. The narrow depth of field fully isolates the subject, and brings all focus to the intricate textures and features of the fish, and its complex blending of colors. No complaints from me. WClarke 04:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question This is a really cool image! Is there any chance of identifying the species? I think it would be very sad that such a picture would stay with these three global categories. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree with Basotxerri and even if the name of the file is very to the point and funny, it should be changed. Puns and jokes in file names are unfortunately not a part of FP names. Please, try to come up with something that is more encyclopedic as well as something you find appropriate. --cart-Talk 08:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not exceptional. Eye socket not all in focus. Charles (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Doesn't matter. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I miss the "Wow"-effect. --TheAmerikaner (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Woow. The shallow DOF drives the eye the forefront of the eye of the fish, and the use of diagonals and lines makes up a great composition. The categorization is not good enough though. The fish should be identified. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles --Cvmontuy (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Kettle Tulap3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2017 at 16:43:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image could potentially have educational or encyclopedic value, but IMO the foreground is not bright enough, as the sunlight is obstructed, making the colors duller. Along with that, the ground on the left side of the image either appears to not be level, or is distorted when compared to the right side. Sorry. WClarke 03:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Commentcrop it and lighten it up per the comment at photo critques. PumpkinSky talk 13:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very high informational value, a rather striking composition and has wow. But the lightning is not good enough for FP in my opinion. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Given that most of the side we can see is gray, stronger light would really help. Daniel Case (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:39, 26 May 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:2016.08.23.-01-Vogelstangsee Mannheim--Weidenjungfer-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 10:51:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Покинута обсерваторія.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 02:29:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Paxzcasso1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2017 at 02:19:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created and uploaded by Paxzcasso - nominated by me -- Thennicke (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Pha Diao Dai ("Lonely Cliff"), Khao Yai National Park, Thailand
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow, only thing I'd wish for is a tad bit more space at the bottom, but let's not be greedy here. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as long as the CAs are not cleaned --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Heavy CA and general lack of detail.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Wow, I don't think I've ever seen this much CA in a photo before. Not sure it can be fixed without severely harming the quality of the photo. --cart-Talk 08:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Guépier d'Europe ichkeul (Merops apiaster) European Bee-eater.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 17:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Laitche (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I wish the bottom crop wasn't so close to the tail feather. The room at top is perfect. Daphne Lantier 18:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it better now?. El Golli Mohamed 19:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 20:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality, though colours might be perked up a bit. I would crop it square, but that doesn't influence my vote. Charles (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 23:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive that El Golli Mohamed won all of the top 8 places in WLE Tunisia 2016; with uploads like this you might be able to do it again this year -- Thennicke (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Nice colours and bokeh; I'm happy with the crop as it is. —Bruce1eetalk 07:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Professional and well-managed photograph of a beautiful specimen with a high encyclopedic value, and not like the Colin image of the year (just kidding this last comment) --The Photographer 11:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Common kingfisher, October 2015, Osaka VI.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 17:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016.09.24.-06-Felsenberg-Berntal Leistadt--Mauerfuchs-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:43:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

You should take the same measure for estimating your own pictures as other people's pictures. --Hockei (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The head is not the focus of this image. It makes sense to aim for the head when taking an image of most animals and insects, but in this situation I don't think the head is important -- Thennicke (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose I disagree. The head is always vital for this sort of insect photo. Just look at all the successful FPs. Charles (talk) 09:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.09.24.-05-Felsenberg-Berntal Leistadt--Mauerfuchs-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Reine Lofoten 2009.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:24:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thennicke, I don't think the composition is "arbitrary". Just as wide as the photographer could get. The photo is uncropped and the focal length is 18mm from an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens on an APS-C camera. I agree it would be nice to have a little more width, but not a deal breaker. The weather and colours are great, if it was a more modern photo with more detail than 6MP, it might still be a winner for me. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree. The crop is fine, IMO, but Ximonic's picture is better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Moving backwards to find a new angle (zooming with feet), or even creating a panorama (as it appears Ximonic did), are almost always possibilities. I see no reason why that couldn't have been done here, and I would have supported if the composition was better. And of course I don't mean to be harsh with my choice of words; it is otherwise a great image. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Kreuzgang, Kapelle -- 2017 -- 7218-24.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 15:09:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Grand Canyon Horseshoe Bend.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 14:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Update: I'm no longer at a loss - I've been using too high a sharpening radius :D -- Thennicke (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm fine with the bottom; stop down any further and using a 50mm prime on a 5DS R would have been pointless. -- King of ♠ 02:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Milseburg. The unsharp foreground surely adds nothing to the picture; it only subtracts from it, and is in my opinion disqualifying. If you crop it out, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the foreground does add to the image, even if it is unsharp (since the foreground is not the subject that should be irrelevant anyway. Also, per Peulle below, it's impossible without focus stacking). The reason the inclusion of the foreground is important IMO that it allows the curve of the river and rocks to be uninterrupted. One of the hardest things to do is avoiding those kinds of "cuts" in an image and I suspect that's what Thomas was going for here -- Thennicke (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I see the point made by Milseburg and Ikan Kekek, but since the foreground curves upwards to the right, cropping it out would mean cutting off the river: no fix possible without focus stacking. Main subject is clear and sharp, the level of detail is amazing for such a large photo, you can even see birds in the sky clearly outlined and power line towers in the distance. Slight noise but hardly noteworthy given the high resolution.--Peulle (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Fünf Höfe - Hanging Gardens, Munich, April 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 12:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Mallnitz Seebach Seitenarm 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 12:00:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Brown-lipped snail (Cepaea nemoralis) 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 09:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  •   Info Poor old molluscs don't even get their own category on FPC. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 14:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not very big, but nice light and colors. --Yann (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Some chroma noise and general lack of sharpness in places - for such a low resolution image, I don1t think that's good enough for FP.--Peulle (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Around head not sharp and not enough demarcation to the background. --Hockei (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Heteropoda venatoria-Kadavoor-2017-05-22-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 07:20:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • The adult has a flat, brown body 2 to 2.5 cm (0.8 to 1 inch) long, 7 to 10 cm (3 to 4 inches) wide, including the legs. I saw once it paralyzed a Common house gecko with a single bite. Will bite us too if taken in hand. Supposed to be painful; but harmless. Jee 09:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Wandeling over het Hulshorsterzand-Hulshorsterheide. Hierdensche Beek 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2017 at 04:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Arches Fingers IMG 0058 3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 21:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Machu Picchu, Perú, 2015-07-30, DD 47.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 20:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info View of the ancient houses of Machu Picchu houses, Urubamba Province, Cusco Region, today Peru. The 15th-century Inca citadel, abandoned one century later, is situated in the Sacred Valley on a mountain ridge 2,430 metres (7,970 ft) above sea level. All by me, Poco2 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 20:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice clean shot with great detail. Atsme 📞 23:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent, it can't be lack --The Photographer 11:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 14:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support A fresh look at a familiar subject; considering the cliché view from the Inca Trail so predominates, it's almost like I've never seen this before. I particularly like the bushed tourists—been there (well, not exactly, but that sort of place), done that. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 15:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks tilted. The people aren't standing/sitting straight. Suggest nearly 2° rotation and a little vertical perspective correction may help. -- Colin (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Seconding the tilt argument. I doesn't need as much as 2° (ccw) but def can use 1°+. Indifferent on the perspective correction though. -- KennyOMG (talk) 03:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Larrun - Arroyo 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 18:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Minimal oppose I don't know ... I can see why you took it, but it just doesn't come together for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral If it was a sunshine weather, it would be perfect. -- -donald- (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I would disagree, the cloudy weather is perfect for this scene. -- King of ♠ 02:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Outcropping of layered stone in the background is nice, but overall, I don't consider this a featurable image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Lotus JNTBGRI.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 17:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info Sacred Lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) at Jawarlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Gardens and Research Intitute, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India. All by Shishr -- Shishirdasika (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Shishirdasika (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Qualified support Flower is nice but the background is more of a distraction than I wish it were. Daniel Case (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background (the green leaves) is disturbing me. Also no wow. Common composition. --Hockei (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The green leaves are ok, but the brown one is disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Neptuul (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:100 Lire - Citta del Vaticano - Giovanni XXIII.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 15:04:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Saint-Jean-de-Buèges cf10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 09:56:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Like the simple yet beautiful village scene. Jee 13:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Pretty. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry to introduce a discordant note: This is a very good picture, of course, and informative, but I don't find the composition (or perhaps the motif, as fully depicted) outstanding enough for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Ikan. Daphne Lantier 21:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A QI but doesn't stand out from other landscapes, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very interesting. --Milseburg (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must agree with Ikan. Whilst the countryside is beautiful, I don't think this composition compares to, say, File:Vieussan, Hérault 12.jpg (which, by the way, is one of my favourite images on this whole site) -- Thennicke (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Lycidae-Kadavoor-2017-05-22-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 06:59:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures//Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info Lycidae with a Cunaxidae. It's most likely a larva, but there's also s small chance it could be a larviform female. See the quoted comment of the expert in file description for more details. All by Jkadavoor -- Jee 06:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jee 06:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question It's certainly an FP-quality photo. The lack of clear categorization seems unavoidable, and I have every plan to vote for this, regardless, but a point for clarification: Is the pink mite or whatever from the Cunaxidae family? Shouldn't that category be included at the bottom of the file page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes; both the experts commented in that Facebook link (Michael Geiser and Jayaram Devang) are subject experts of Coleoptera and Trombidiformes respectively. It is difficult to find the ID for a lower level, especially for a female or larva of such a small subjects. I added Category:Cunaxidae too as four people already confirmed that ID. Jee 08:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC) BTW, this picture has 146 likes, mostly from subject experts in a subject specific group.  
  •   Support shame about the id problem, but the mite makes it. 09:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Charles (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
So mite makes right?   Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Alrite, you mite be rite, if a bit trite. Jee found a good no-bite, flash-lite site at the rite hite at nite without much of a fite. Quite. Charles (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  Jee 09:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:SFMasonStreet.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2017 at 05:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done Category fixed. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I doubt my view will be popular here, but I like the shade and find the shade in the foreground and light in the middleground and background refreshing, because the shadow isn't black and I still see the various colors of the houses. I may have a slight bias, because I like San Francisco and this kind of scene, including the shadows, is relaxing to me as a scene that accurately represents San Francisco at a non-foggy time or place. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The more I look at it, the more I like the composition. Normally you'd end up with an unbalanced image in pointing your camera at a scene in this way, but the taller buildings on the left actually make it quite nicely balanced. And we could argue about the contrast being overdone but I think it's tasteful as it is. But @KennyOMG: please add a category. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile. Would like hear more opinions on how to consider this types of old works prior to vote. Jee 15:55, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing really makes this stand out from other San Francisco cityscapes, and the color looks a little off to me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like the idea that someone has attempted to take a panoramic image of San Francisco from one of its hills, but this shot is definitely not exceptional enough out of what can be really done. The composition is too busy and the captured buildings are uninteresting except for the houses on the right side depicting the city's traditional and recognisable architectural style. For example, one can get to Telegraph Hill for a nice shot of the Transamerica Pyramid with its surrounding buildings. From the description, I suppose the idea was to depict Mason Street, which could have been captured in a variety of better ways (e.g. the intersection between Mason Street and Washington Street with the Cable Car Museum in the corner), but it seems like there is not much of it. I also tend to agree that the sky is a bit blown, especially with the clouds above the top of the buildings on the right side.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment, @Kiril Simeonovski:, however I think there's some misunderstanding here. Sometimes a picture is just a picture with whatever happens to be in on, and not the be-all and end-all of a given subject. This was never meant to be the definitive visual representation of SF, nor of Mason St. It just happened to be taken in SF/on Mason St, therefore the name. Obv if I wanted to take a pic of the TransAm Pyramid or something else I would have. Similarly the northern part of Mason is a completely different beast. As for what makes SF SF: I think if you take away the immediately recognizable landmarks (Pyramid, Bridge, Cable car) then it's the hills, the houses, the Bay and the fog. This pic actually covers 3 of those 4. Having said that I always liked this because I considered it a pretty pic, nothing else. ;) As for the sky being blown, I'm not a fan of compressing the whole dynamics into the midtones, you can see it on my other photos too. (eta: panorama it is not, 35mm on full frame with top&bottom cropped) -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @KennyOMG: With all due respect, you were definitely trying to capture an interesting view of the city; unfortunately, it did not end into something that wows me enough for an FP. I don't intend to see the things mentioned in my previous comment in order to support an image from San Francisco, but they are just a sort of things that could make a featurable composition in my humble opinion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Cart & Daniel. Daphne Lantier 21:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination

File:Margaret Hamilton.gifEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 17:36:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info Margaret Hamilton standing next to the navigation software that she and her MIT team produced for the Apollo Project (1 January 1969). Created by Draper Laboratory - uploaded by Girona7 - nominated by Tino -- Tino (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It is a famous and iconic image, and the technical quality should be good enough (I hope being a grayscale is not a problem). -- Tino (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for nominate this image (maybe need a format image change). BTW I uploaded a restaured jpg version, however, I don't underestand why the contrast look different --The Photographer 18:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The only difference I'm seeing between the two versions is that in the restored version, a few spots were removed and a scratch was taken out. I'd support substituting that version, but it's not a big deal to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support this version. The restored version looks unnaturally smooth, with the fine details blurred by NR. -- King of ♠ 03:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - works for me. Atsme 📞 03:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 06:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I was searching around for this image the other day and couldn't seem to find it, so thanks for nominating it. It's a good one. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would support the restored JPEG instead. Yann (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the enthusiasm and the sheer joy of having completed a difficult project that this picture conveys. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Tino and Daniel Case. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 21:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support WClarke 05:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Nikola Shishevski Matka.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 15:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Basotxerri, while the quality here is certainly borderline, QIC is not a requirement for FP and has its own standards which permit "incredible scenery" to compensate for technical shortcomings. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The graininess makes it look more painterly to me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Suffering from processing and low JPG quality. But the image is good and not too bad at 6 megapixels. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Numida meleagris - Heidelberg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2017 at 06:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Galliformes
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support What a background! Jee 06:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 22:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose To me, a very routine picture of a bird. QI possibly, but not FP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The background is too busy and insufficiently blurred. -- King of ♠ 03:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I made the photo especially because of the background. --Llez (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support No, it's not sublime or sophisticated, it is happy, over-the-top whimsical, gaudy like your favorite Aunt's Victorian majolica pottery vases. That's an art form too and should be represented at FP. --cart-Talk 06:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only average technical quality and composition. Charles (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support brightly --Neptuul (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel --Hockei (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the background. Wish some flowers weren't wilted though. -- Colin (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel Case and Charles.--Peulle (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2016 Pałac w Wojanowie 7.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 21:34:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great but there's some kind of dust spot above the castle, I've left a note. --Code (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. This is a great view of an impressive building, only wish the shadow weren't there. -- King of ♠ 05:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weaker support than King. Not only is the shadow distracting, there are some borderline blown areas on the castle facade. Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    I noticed that the facade looked weird as well, and was in fact about to weak oppose over that. But I downloaded the file and found that the detail was there. And not just that the values weren't 255, which can be faked by dragging the highlights slider to recover data that's not even there, but actual detail which I revealed by dropping exposure even further. But the exposure definitely could have been better; I would have done 15 stops (equivalent of 1/500s at f/8 at ISO 100) rather than the 14⅓ used here. -- King of ♠ 03:13, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I don't mind the shadows, they make the foreground interesting, but the building is too bright. --cart-Talk 06:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't believe in "too bright"; it's good to use the colour space to its full extent (obviously without clipping) -- Thennicke (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Maire (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don´t mind shadows or brightness but the branches hiding part of the building is disturbing. --Milseburg (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Common blue damselflies (Enallagma cyathigerum) mating composite.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 19:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • No I didn't get it, Jee. I was on 100mm macro, so very close, and they flew off. Charles (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh. But you captured some wonderful moments! (Sometimes, it takes a lot of time to get coupled. Sometimes the male needs to change the perch and try again.) Jee 13:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:PogledKonPrespaOdPelister.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2017 at 18:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.