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:Eskibel - Paisaje.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 18:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Aeolian Islands at sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 18:16:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Comment Yes esteban, I know....is the beautiful,blue sky,red sky and island. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting and beautiful -- Spurzem (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many posterized and unsharp areas. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Daniel is not pasteurized is the rarefied air ..... anyway where would unsharp? thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Túnel natural, Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2016-04-03, DD 05.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 17:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info Natural tunnel with a viewer at the back :) in Hartelholz Forest, Munich, Germany. All by me, Poco2 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco2 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice doggy (and tunnel)! :) But there is red CA on most of the branches at the top. w.carter-Talk 19:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Has an almost hand-painted appearance. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Loojangu värvid 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 15:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kreta - Kournas-See.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 08:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Trifolium pratense - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 06:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •  Info Red clover (Trifolium pratense), all by Ivar (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB if off, and the image looks oversharpened (see dark lines at the countours) --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Uoaei1: WB was not off, look at shooting time (or maybe you haven't seen orange light during golden hour?). Leaf edges of the red clover are sometimes dark red, look this --Ivar (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I have also added the Category:Plants and trees at golden hour (set up some new cats since the first one was getting crowded) to the pic, same as I did to your previous flower. Perhaps you should remember to add that in the future to keep misunderstandings to a minimum. w.carter-Talk 10:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The droplets really make this golden-hour flower special. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Modelo didatico bovino correto.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 00:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info It's not a correction, it's a restoration from original file, because, IMHO Arion nomination has destructive alterations like oversharpening, overexposition and color saturation, btw, I preffer a black background, remembering that it's only my opinion --The Photographer (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Really a nice work, thanks! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support This has evident relevance for Wikipedias! Joalpe (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As a Wikipedian, I thank you. :) w.carter-Talk 16:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Pole with tension weight for overhead lines.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 21:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016.07.04.-26-Eilenburg-Ost--Distelfalter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 17:04:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 14:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info created by Giorgi Balakhadze - uploaded by Giorgi Balakhadze - nominated by Giorgi Balakhadze -- g. balaxaZe 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- g. balaxaZe 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Welcome to FPC, Giorgi Balakhadze! It's really a good start, but being a cell phone camera, the level of detail is somewhat limited. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Very weak support per Arion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I would suggest cloning out that black thing at top left in the sky. Good to see a nomination not shot with a multi-1000$ camera/lense. INeverCry 18:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It is a beautiful scene, but I think the level of detail should have been a bit better here for an FP. This is not your fault, it's just us being very picky here. I also think you should nominate these for Quality Image and one of them for Valued image. We would also appreciate if you could provide the coordinates for the camera location on the files so that they can be displayed on OpenStreetMap and Google Earth. Please look at this files page to see how that is done. w.carter-Talk 19:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice scenery, and the quality is quite good for a cell phone - but not enough for FP level. Details are too unsharp, and parts in shadow are too dark and noisy. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 13:50:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Comment well, given the miniscule size of the camera's sensor (4mm diagonal), the f-stop as such is more than adequate. The lack of sharpness (at least when compared to more advanced photographic systems) is due to the sensor itself. This being said, the picture's still good enough imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Striking, especially that cloud shadow. Also the effort of getting these photos (reading the description) rivals this nom. w.carter-Talk 19:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of details. I also miss something special in this scenery. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me this image is very good. Perhaps we could look for lacks but we should not overdo. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Four-spotted chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata) female dorsal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 12:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •  Info all by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Charles (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support An absolutely stunning creature, but I am a little bothered by the sharpness of that grass it is sitting on. It seems almost "attached" to the dragonfly's head. There is another sharp grass up right that could be blended in with the rest of the bokeh. Thoughts? w.carter-Talk 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Done I've removed the bit of grass as you suggested. Charles (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe a very very little bit oversharpened, and background a very very little bit noisy, but what a marvel ! I would like to know how to take such pictures ! Congratulations.--Jebulon (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Frecce tricolori Air show Valtenesi del Garda Manerba .jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 06:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Junonia atlites-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 05:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Zaadpluizen van Cirsium vulgare in mild avondlicht. Locatie, De Famberhorst 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 05:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:7N Djurgårdslinjen SSB A2 24.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 16:10:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Land vehicles
  •  Info created/uploaded/nominated by Alexandar Vujadinovic -- Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - as nom. - Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is a beautiful picture that brings back fond memories for me and certainly a QI or VI, but that modern tram behind the tram spoils the image for me and an FP should be perfect. (not suggesting it could be cloned out this time) This museum tram runs so often that it would be no problem to wait for one with no modern vehicles around it. The architecture around this stop is from the 19th century so the perfect setting for the tram otherwise. Also you got the geo tag wrong, it has this as on the bridge, but the stop and this pic is on Strandvägen at 59.331748, 18.092906 just before the bridge even if the stop is named after the bridge. Sorry, but thank you for showing it. :) w.carter-Talk 17:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the location data, I've updated the page now. As for the newer tram in the background, I waited for it on purpose because I thought it'd be fun to have the newest and one of the oldest in the same image - Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining how you thought, perhaps others will see this the same way you do. Had it been a side-by-side or more shown of the new version, I would have agreed with you, but not as it is unfortunately. w.carter-Talk 19:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per WC. INeverCry 21:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, plus I don’t like the current collector to be cut off as it is part of the coach. Sorry if it sounds harsh but this strikes me rather as a tourist shot than a carefully composed image. I am sure this can be done better, in a less busy environment. --Kreuzschnabel 22:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kreuzschanbel. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Gloucester Cathedral High Altar, Gloucestershire, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 14:02:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Diese "distorted"-Behauptung wird nicht wahrer vom ständigen Wiederholen. Ich warte immer noch auf Deinen Vorschlag, wie man solche Kircheninnenräume denn besser abbilden sollte. --Code (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • durch natürliche Projektion. --Ralf Roleček 16:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Aha. Und was ist das, "natürliche Projektion"? Ergänzung: Dein Bild hier wurde mit einem 10mm-Objektiv gemacht und hat eine geradlinige Projektion. Das Bild von Diliff wurde aus mehreren Bildern zusammengesetzt und entspricht einem 8mm-Objektiv, ebenfalls mit geradliniger Projektion. Deins ist ok, seins nicht oder wie soll ich das verstehen? Erklär mir den Unterschied. --Code (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, ich muß zugeben, darauf habe ich keine Antwort. --Ralf Roleček 17:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral See several discussions below.  Oppose It really is beautiful and perfect, but IMO too beautiful and perfect, it doesn't look real, more like some computer animation from a film or a game with a huge budget and very good animators. Truly sorry. w.carter-Talk 17:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: Sorry, but I really don't understand why you opposed. Please, explain me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @ArionEstar: I explained it below to Ikan, is that enough or should I do this once again here? w.carter-Talk 13:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @ArionEstar: Now this is turning into a philosophical discussion, by "too perfect" here I meant that it was so flawless that it looked unreal. Kreuz said it better in his explanation when he called it overprocessed and oversaturated. That was the "photography-speak" I was looking for. I am not wowed by this picture, it has perspective but it does not convey a sense of depth, the light is flat, the arches nearest the camera are far too distorted, the stained glass window at the end looks too bright. I don't find this image as stunning as the rest of his church pictures. But I will probably be explaining this "not-wowed" for the rest of my life if I keep up opposing this, so I move to neutral instead. I've learned my lesson. w.carter-Talk 14:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't worry about expressing your opinion... You might be right or you might be wrong, but you're entitled to a subjective opinion. You may have a point about the flat lighting anyway. It's not actually flat (there is plenty of contrast), but there was a huge range of luminosity in the scene and the only way to 'squeeze' it into a normal low dynamic range image is to compress it and sometimes that makes it appear flat even when it's not. As I said below, I think reshooting it when the lighting was more balanced would help, but for now, this image is what it is. :-) Diliff (talk) 11:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support perfect as always. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - It certainly looks real to me. W.carter, I have to shake my head in disbelief at the idea of opposing a photo because it's "too perfect". Because really great computer animators can produce a fine simulacrum of reality now, we're going to penalize the very greatest photographers for their level of perfection? I think that's not only absurd but really objectionable, and a totally untenable basis for opposing a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: We deal very much in subjectivity when casting our votes on these candidates, and describing why you don't think something that ought to be ok, is not, that's very difficult. That was the nearest I could come to explaining why the image did not appeal to me. Perhaps I should have used a language like 'flat light', 'too bright stained glass windows', 'arches nearest the camera looking distorted', 'even though it has perspective, it does not convey a sense of depth'. A perfect rendition of something is not necessarily a good photo. Would such a description be more satisfying? We all have our own way of describing why we like or don't like a photo. You often talk about "moving your eyes around the photo", an expression I have never understood, but I respect that as your way of describing how you take in a picture. Mine is often by using simile or metaphore. w.carter-Talk 20:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Those specifics make sense to me. In terms of moving one's eyes around the picture frame, see if you can find information about the linear arabesque. My father, a painter, cited a specific treatise, but I don't remember its name at present. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll see if I can look that up somewhere. And I'll use a more direct language in the future. We don't want things to get 'Lost in translation'. w.carter-Talk 07:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 21:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Diliff is the best church interiors photographer. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That, I can totally agree with! :) But even the greatest masters sometimes create works that does not appeal to everyone. I don't like all Rembrandts just because they have his signature either. w.carter-Talk 21:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • An odd discussion indeed. I'm very surprised at being pummeled like this for having a different opinion than the rest of the community, I thought that was allowed. I'm starting to feel like a heretic in front of the inquisition for daring to not be wowed by a work of Saint Diliff The Magnificent! But if it saves me from being burned at the stake, I can change me vote to 'Neutral' so as not to hinder the speedy ascension of His work to FP. ;) --w.carter-Talk 07:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • w.carter: Ups, my last comment was way more harsh than I intended it to be. I should have added a smiley or two. I've realized that after re-reading it. I absolutely and honestly didn't want to attack you or your right to an dissenting opinion which I do - of course - respect. Therefore I'd like to apologize for my tone. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: Come on, this is ridiculous and you know it. Your opinion is always very welcome. But that doesn't mean that other's aren't allowed to reply on your comments as well. This is what we call a discussion. It's quite simple: If you don't want others to reply on your comments you shouldn't post them in the first place. However, I agree with you that language is often a problem here at FPC. I'm not a native English speaker as well and I often don't really know how to express my opinion properly. Thoughtfulness is the key, I think. --Code (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, I know. I enjoy a good discussion as much as anyone else and I can give as good as I get. No need to apologize for anything neither you or Martin, I have a very thick skin. Now I also know that speaking metaphorically may be nice when discussing art or the taste of a good wine, but not so much when discussing photos here. I should have tagged my comment above with a ";)" to clarify that I made that one smiling. (now fixed) And to explain a bit, part of my job is to go through hundreds of almost identical photos of something each day and decide which one is the best for a cover, an ad, a brochure, etc. So I'm more used to the "in or out" system, "neutral" is new to me. w.carter-Talk 10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Though I usually am a great Diliff fan this is overprocessed in my eyes. Colours oversaturated (see all red areas, and even the blue books). Impressing level of detail of course but the look at 100 percent is too unreal for me. --Kreuzschnabel 22:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Wow, this is even better than I thought ... come for the quality church interior, stay for the German lesson . Daniel Case (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Great // Martin K. (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment. From memory this was a tough interior to process. I don't think the colours are unrealistic, especially on the books. If anything, the stained glass was the hardest part to process and some parts are blown a little bit (even with 5 bracketed images with 2-3 stops between them!). I would like to visit again when the light isn't as harsh, I think the stained glass would look better that way. But it's still quite accurate I think. Diliff (talk) 11:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Insula Maioricae Vicentius Mut 1683.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 13:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yep, looks terrible in FF but fine in Chrome. INeverCry 04:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 Question - Wait. What is this about Firefox? And how will it look on smartphones, which a lot of people will use to view it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the problem. This evening I will try to get rid of those ICC-Data tags that seem to be causing problems with Firefox. --Hispalois (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)  Done by El Grafo (see below).
  •  Oppose per Alchemist. If it's hard to view, it's not a good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, but it's fine with me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Arion. INeverCry 21:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm not having a problem reading it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support any chance to fix the profile problem? IE and Safari work, FF doesn't. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • It was using a strange, non-standard colour profile called Metis DRS 2A0 CC24. Tried converting to standard sRGB using Gimp – new version looks normal to me in Firefox now (but @Hispalois: please feel free to revert my version if you've got a better solution). --El Grafo (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Your version fixed the issue. Thank you very much! --Hispalois (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is not an original, just a 1946 reimpression. Far much less value--Jebulon (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I agree that an original would fetch much more money in an auction but regarding the encyclopaedic usefulness of the image I'd say there is not much difference. It should be noted that this was a true reimpression, from the original copperplates, not a facsimile. --Hispalois (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

File:13-04-13-st-poelten-landhausviertel-628.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 13:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info St. Pölten, Austria, Landhausviertel-Boulevard - all by --Ralf Roleček 13:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ralf Roleček 13:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Great light, great lines, great perspective, great desolation, but still lacks something... w.carter-Talk 15:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing special in the architecture, average quality. Too much ground and too few roof. --A.Savin 17:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Support - I quite like this photo, but I'd love it if you could sharpen it a bit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Savin. INeverCry 21:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Living myself next to St. Pölten, I have to say: boring architecture. Also too much floor on this picture. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Sympetrum fonscolombii, female, Sète cf06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 07:38:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Can't we have multiple FPs of the same thing? I've never heard anything about that. Anyway, the file:Darter August 2007-22 edit.jpg is an FP on the English and Croatian Wikipedia, not the Commons. --w.carter-Talk 22:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It is only a 1.7 MP which may be good per that day's standard; but not of now. Jee 03:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Hersilia-2016-06-19-002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 06:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
  •  Info A Tree trunk spider (Hersilia sp.) capturing a cicada. "Rather than making a web that captures prey directly, they lay a light coating of threads over an area of tree bark and wait hidden in plain sight for an insect to stray onto that patch. Once that occurs, they direct their spinnerets toward their prey and circle it; all the while casting silk on it. When the hapless insect has been thoroughly immobilized, they can bite it through its new shroud. They have lightning speed, giving the victim no chance to escape." C/u/n by Jkadavoor -- Jee 06:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Jee 06:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Yuck, but great picture. I know we have the {{Nsfw}} template for nudity and such, is there some similar arachnid warning? w.carter-Talk 15:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You can design one. Jee 16:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I suppose this deserves a feature out of pure interest, but if it would work to sharpen the spider just a bit, please do so. It's a good-looking spider, though of course I feel for the cicada. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Qualified support The image is striking enough that although I would have cropped in more tightly on the, uh, action, it can still be featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 21:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I'm a little embarrassed by the proportions, I would have maybe prefer a vertical shooting and then a 45° rotation to have the trunk horizontal...though good picture! Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Tree trunk spiders usually seen on main trunk; not on branches. So making the trunk horizontal may reduce the EV. A portrait crop removing empty sky from both sides may possible. (This is a high speed action; just happened close to my range. I didn't made a single step; just raise the camera and shoot. Only later I found I'm able to capture all important moments, including the bite through shroud.) Jee 03:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support FP for sure and the slight lack of sharpness is not important for this type of shot. Charles (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Women model top.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2016 at 04:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Sitting_people
  •  Info created by Patrick Subotkiewiez - uploaded and nominated by -- The Photographer (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 04:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent portrait. --Code (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good -- Spurzem (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent. --Pugilist (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ralf Roleček 13:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent quality photo! Looking forward to the male version. w.carter-Talk 15:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. Well composed, well lit, and I appreciate the depth of field. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support A genuinely artistic seminude. Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I don't wanna spoil the nudist party but I don't find this picture particularly enticing. I'm pretty sure it does work well in black&white though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question Excellent, but what about the copyright ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC) Sorry, it is good.--Jebulon (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jebulon (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Cute--Lmbuga (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Laelatu puisniit.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 20:32:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info created and uploaded by Margus6 - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info Up to 76 species of vascular plants have been counted there on a square meter - 2nd best result in the world for small scale biodiversity (i.e. no. of species per 1 m2).
  •  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ralf Roleček 21:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I have some trouble getting excited over this pic since such landscapes are very much "home" to me and I know that photos of them can be so much better than this, but I won't oppose it either since it may look as exotic to others as the Andes are to me. Could also be a bit sharper. w.carter-Talk 21:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Probably a good document, but not appealing to me. Also not sharp enough.--Jebulon (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose While it's better than the inevitable tide of autumn pics we see from first-time nominators come October and November, it still isn't striking enough to me to be featurable (it would be nice if it drew me further into it than just a few meters beyond the lens, and maybe it would be better on a sunny day). Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Perhaps Wikipedia would be interested in featuring this photo for the encyclopedic fact about biodiversity, but for the purposes of Commons, I'd submit that it's neither an interesting image nor is it composed or cropped in an interesting or seemingly logical way. Sorry, I know that sounds harsh, but it's truly my reaction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me the image is very beautiful. May be that it should be a bit sharper. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - A beautiful place indeed but the lightning is flat and sharpness could be better. Wow-factor is low. So unfortunately an oppose from my side. --Pugilist (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose mostly for quality. Flat contrast and poor detail for a less-than-10-mpix candidate. Composition looks random, the message on biodiversity needs explanation. Certainly most interesting but not outstanding as a photographic work as such. --Kreuzschnabel 12:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Apis mellifera - Melilotus albus - Keila2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 19:33:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Entzia - Paisaje 04.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 09:45:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral This probably looked much cooler IRL 3D than it came out in the 2D photo, with that cliff sticking out over a precipice contrasting the hills in the distance. Might have worked better if you'd gone further to the left and got a more diagonal line bisecting the image. Others may see this differently. w.carter-Talk 11:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per W. carter. Feels like the middle section of something that would be better as a panorama. Also seems underexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per W. carter & Daniel. INeverCry 20:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - per others. A good picture but not a FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Jaguar E-Type series 1 coupé 1964.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 09:12:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •  Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- DeFacto (talk). 09:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, no. Great car and detail, unfortunate background, especially with that distracting message/ad in the window. Again we ask the impossible of photographers at FPC, such as walk on water, hover in the air or get the owner of the car to park it at a better location. Ok, I'm only assuming it is not your car, if it were I think you would have chosen a better location to shoot it. w.carter-Talk 10:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, but per above. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the background is a good contrast to the wonderful car. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Well, you could "cheat" and clone the right window onto the left one to get rid of the ad and busy window. I mean we have accepted cars being cloned out in front of buildings, so why not part of a building cloned behind a car? And a toned down + desaturated version of the yellow is a good complementary color to the blue of the car. --w.carter-Talk 13:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Code (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Without prejudice to whether the retouching in the alt version is acceptable or not, the composition doesn't add up to me, though I actually prefer this version, which gives the eye more to move around. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

alt versionEdit

  •  Info, Martin Falbisoner, Alchemist-hp, Code: here's another version with an alternative background per w.carter's sugestion above. DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Now this version is something I'd call striking. Please add a {{retouched|What you did}} tag to the new version though. (And remove that line per below.) w.carter-Talk 14:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done, added tag. DeFacto (talk). 17:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm sorry. Fake. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Just curious, what is the difference between this and cloning out an offending car, street lamp, trash, bottles or any other of the things we have asked photographers to get rid of here? w.carter-Talk 14:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Normally, I don't bother with objects that are cloned out, but in this case, part of the background (which is a crucial element for a photography composition) is fake. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for explaining. I was only wondering since you had no problem supporting this faked image, but here we all know that the pic is manipulated from the start so that might make it harder to accept. I guess it's up to each of us where we decide to draw the line as long as the cloning/manipulation is thoroughly declared on the file's page, something that is clearly done in this case. w.carter-Talk 16:14, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Cool pic! :) Thanks for showing it, now I understand exactly what you mean. Great explaining. w.carter-Talk 17:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Request I see a thin line at the car at the coned place and everywhere cyan color points?! What's that? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done, @Alchemist-hp: I'm no retouch artist, but reprocessed the changes and it looks clean now. DeFacto (talk). 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I thought the car was so striking in the original that I didn't even notice the background. But this is just fine as an FP, despite the fact that a careful eye will see signs of the cloning. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Aceptable retuch --The Photographer (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 21:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I'm just not comfortable with editing of this magnitude. --King of ♠ 23:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for reasons given above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Whatever the outcome of this nom may be, it is very interesting and enlightening to hear the community's view on corrections and what levels are acceptable. --w.carter-Talk 16:03, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Mile (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent, and very good new background. Smart idea well completed. If this image was nominated at first without explanations, it should have receive more supports. Why "punish" honesty ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Main subject and reality are not altered --The Photographer (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Yann (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per orhers and clearly unfortunate and uggly background--Lmbuga (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Six Men in a Boat at Cobbler's Cliff Backa Brastad.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2016 at 06:07:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Religion
  •  Info created and uploaded by User:W.carter - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Another in W.carter's series of photos of the Bronze Age petroglyphs at Skomakarhällen. Obvious artistic and educational value, in my opinion. (By the way, why is my category a red link? Please fix or suggest a fix if you understand this.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support @Ikan Kekek: I put this in the same category as her last one. Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Others would probably be the only other option. INeverCry 06:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support But I would like a bit more contrast. -- Spurzem (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks Ikan, that was unexpected. I'm glad you chose one of the smaller ones, they are often overlooked in favor of the large ships but they are more distinct and easier to isolate in the jumble of pictures on the cliffs. Six happy guys in their boat, off on a little Sunday raid... Contrast is upped a bit per request, not too much though since the colors are originally rather soft. I used one of the pine needles as a guide. w.carter-Talk 09:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Happy to nominate it. I'm glad others also consider it worthy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de África, Ceuta, España, 2015-12-10, DD 70-72 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2016 at 21:16:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lotus Temple-Panoroma-Visit During WCI 2016- IMG 6471.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2016 at 17:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •  Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia - nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice motif. Could surely be featurable if only the light was better. Looks very dull this way. Additionally the picture needs a perspective correction. --Code (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Code. INeverCry 20:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, which is a pity because idea and location are striking. Can this be taken from a higher point of view to have less sky within the frame? --Kreuzschnabel 04:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I have to agree with the others. Please try photographing this temple again on a somewhat brighter day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Very weak support I agree with Code and Ikan but frankly this picture captures the symmetry effectively enough. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Weak support. No sunshine but good impression. -- Spurzem (talk) 07:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I'll support it without any reservations. The building itself is awesome, taking the pic on a sunny day would most likely have blown much of the detail on the white roof and reflections from the pool could have wrecked havoc on the composition. Plus I welcome FPs of buildings from different religions, not just churches. --w.carter-Talk 09:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice shot--Biplab Anand (Talk) 13:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others, with regrets...--Jebulon (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Commanderij Sint Pietersvoeren 2016 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2016 at 15:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •  Info created by Hans Erren - uploaded by Hans Erren - nominated by Hans Erren -- Hans Erren (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Hans Erren (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like it a little bit darker und with more contrast. Further the town-gate is leaning left. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Done vertical lines rotated to true vertical, autocontrast changed using irfanview; it was a very bright morning so the intense colours are real. Hans Erren (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A QI perhaps, but first it's kind of unsharp at depth, with visible CA; second, the composition does not stand out enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Still seems overexposed (as pointed out by Spurzem already) with washed-out colours, this probably can’t be fixed. Composition does not strike me this way, I’d crop most of the foreground out (try a 16:9 ratio at full width) to focus on the building. But the main issue is the image quality (sharpness) which is way too poor to be featured I’m afraid – the photographer is in dire need of better gear to execute his good ideas suitably. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Surely doesn't suck, but not an outstanding photo worthy of a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 06:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Trabant P 601 S, Bj. 1986 (Foto Sp 2016-06-05).JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2016 at 11:28:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
  •  Info Probably no “Wow” for some others but beautiful for me: One of the famous DDR “Trabbis” built in 1986 at a vintage car rally near Koblenz in 2016; created, uploaded and nominated by Spurzem (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral -- Spurzem (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support No, not a "Wow" but a "Yay!". The picture has a happy easy air about it that I like. The light is good and the car is acutally going somewhere, not just sitting there. The background is right for a timeless, carefree Sunday afternoon drive and is not drawing attention away from the car. Even the color of the flowers by the road matches the car. I would welcome a little crop at the bottom though since asphalt is seldom that exciting to look at. Nice shot. w.carter-Talk 12:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Well, imagine that ... last week I compared an Opel with a Trabant, and look what happens? We get a picture of a Trabi that's just as featurable! Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: I remembered. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 Oppose We have Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opel Rekord P1, Bj. 1958 (Foto Sp 2016-06-05).JPG already. How many models of cars are we going to feature with this same exact composition? Just these 2, or will there be a whole series? INeverCry 20:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Please show me the direction that it is not allowed to present nearly the same motive once more or that it would be not allowed to feature! -- Spurzem (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I've seen FPCs opposed here a number of times because they were too close in composition to images of the same location or subject. This image is featurable on its own, but how many cars in this identical composition would be featurable? If we feature 2, why not 5 or 10, as long as it's a different car each time? Please remember though that this is my opinion and my single vote. My supports and opposes are no big deal. Just one guy's opinion. INeverCry 20:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps this composition for cars ("shells for humans") is the equivalent of gastropods with black background ("shells for snails") as a pleasing way to show the different models/species in FPs? w.carter-Talk 03:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
You definitely get points for cleverness on that one. But car after car, in the same basic lighting, on the same road, shot from the same vantage point?... They'll all have the honor of my one little oppose if they're brought here to FPC... INeverCry 03:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support yes, I'd like to see the next hundred different cars ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    If that'll get him 100 FPs, I'd roll out 100 motorcycles after that... INeverCry 04:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    And I would absolutely support you on that project. Since I originally come from the writing side of this project, I don't see it as giving someone 100 FPs, I see it as getting FPs for 100 different articles (or rather hundreds of articles since they could be used for multiple languages). Also, hey, we all have our signature photo subjects... --w.carter-Talk 09:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
    +1 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, may be QI but not outstanding enough for a feature IMHO. At just 6 megapixels it shows poor detail or sharpness, and there’s visible motion blur on all the details. I’d crop half of the bottom space out as well, there’s too much below and too little above the car. --Kreuzschnabel 05:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I like this picture and consider it a good feature. In addition to being a quality photo, the Trabant, as the proletariat's car in East Germany, is historically important. And on the question of featuring numerous cars in similar compositions: Why not? We feature numerous church interiors with similar compositions, too. A worthy photo is a worthy photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • All the flower + bokeh are pretty standard too. w.carter-Talk 10:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support W. carter and Ikan make good points. I think I was being too rigid about this. INeverCry 21:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ralf Roleček 21:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per all of Kreuzschnabel's points. --King of ♠ 23:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Could be positioned better, good anyway. --Mile (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As I remember very well 1989, this photo is much "Wow" for me (Yes I'm old, I was born before the building of the Wall) . This is not a car, this is a Trabbi, ladies and gentlemen. An iconic vehicle, full of symbols, with a great historical value. Technically very good, if not excellent.--Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Colonial house Rua Tristão Mariano 175, São Paulo, Brazil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2016 at 08:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@PetarM: Sorry, but is it really a reason for oppose? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your recommendation @PetarM: and I will take into account the next time, however, in this case, the house was protected by a fence that prevented me put my camera on the floor (you could check it on GSM). BTW, In Brazil is not allowed to invade the privacy and this house has been uninhabited for years. A hug --The Photographer (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • More suggestion Arion. Fence makes difference. --Mile (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Joalpe (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Ana rosa metro station, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 20:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 Done Barrel distortion, please, let me know if it's ok. BTW, answering your question for someone a Tower could be FP and for others a metro station. In this case what i love of this picture is the composition of diagonals and verticals with the woman descending the metro stairs. As a courtesy, it is always best not to ask why a picture is special because what makes a image FP special is just that, transmit you a valuable information without explanation. --The Photographer (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I didn’t say, "This picture is not special" but I did say, "I can’t see anything special". Meaning it doesn’t "transmit a valuable information without explanation" to me, so I just wanted to make sure I am not missing the point here. No offence intended. Furthermore, I didn’t oppose. --Kreuzschnabel 04:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me this is one of the most meaningful photos I`ve ever seen in the FP contributions. BRAVO! A very expressive art picture. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@Johann Jaritz: Certainly, this is one of the most stunning photos taken by The Photographer. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
@ArionEstar: This photo might have been taken from a scene of one of the best thrillers by Alfred Hitchcock. I am still amazed. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - What makes this photo special to me is its composition, which is harmonious, interesting, has a long depth of field and includes a nice work of abstract art in the distance. I also like the variation between the right and left sides. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per above! Absolutely! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't like BW images, but this one works for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support A great picture is something you enjoy looking at, an extraordinary pic makes you feel as if you are actually there. This is the latter. An everyday scene captured in such a special way that it becomes like a time capsule. What could be more important than that for this Wiki-project. w.carter-Talk 09:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support timeless Hans Erren (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Extremely well composed, and unusually for Wikimedia projects it depicts people in motion interacting with their environment. We need more of that. Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I like this overall, but the stance of the woman closest bothers me; it just isn't flattering to her figure to have her right leg and the right side of her butt bulging out. INeverCry 01:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - That's a matter of opinion. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Kreta - Panorama auf Kotsifou-Schlucht.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 20:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Greece
  •  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - This is a really sweet picture and I'd really like to support it, except the unsharp area of the foreground near the left corner bothers me, so I will abstain. If you happen to decide to crop it out, the result certainly looks like one I'd vote for. Just so you understand: the haze-caused unsharpness in the background is normal and doesn't bother me at all; it's only unsharpness in the foreground that is unnatural to my eyes and bothers me, because while there are technical reasons for it, there are in my opinion no good artistic reasons for it in this kind of photo. I've posted about this before: How we as artists should not allow our equipment to play us, rather than playing it (to use the analogy of musical instruments). If I think about this too much, I might oppose, but I will not because the panorama looks good except at full size. That's less than ideal, but it might not be enough of a reason to impede or slow down a feature, as the photo otherwise is very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Captures the texture of the Cretan landscape well. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support per Daniel. Btw., there's a tiny, little, barely visible "cropping error" (ie black background) in the utmost lower right corner --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ralf Roleček 21:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Jee 07:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Beautifull motif, but is it my screen, or the sky looks way to dark and colors dull? --C messier (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll try a little adjustment this evening. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:2016.06.24.-04-Viernheimer Heide-Viernheim--Krabbenspinne-Thomisus onustus-Weibchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 16:52:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Lynx rufus - Zoo Sauvage de Saint-Félicien - 2016-07-19.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 16:49:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •  Info created by Letartean - uploaded by Letartean - nominated by Letartean -- Letartean (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Letartean (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Nice idea and well done, yet I think the DoF is very shallow, at least the head should be in focus more or less. Don’t want to oppose for that though since the composition is striking. --Kreuzschnabel 17:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Good composition but I would like more sharpness at throat and body of the cat. -- Spurzem (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a cat. That's all I need. INeverCry 19:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment A bobcat, to be exact :-) --Kreuzschnabel 19:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes it's a feline, prrr... And you'd think that would be enough, but as a cat lover and having been owned by a cat, I know that these fine beings have high standards regarding their looks, fur must be perfect and immaculate, and an FP should also portray them in the absolutely best manner. No fuzzy hairs! ... Seriously, it's a great image and a great pose, but for an FP there should be more DoF, here it is so shallow that the face looks almost detached from the rest of the body. Very unfortunate. >^o^< w.carter-Talk 20:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    To be clear, it's not a cat, it's a bobcat. Really not as common. Letartean (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    I once had someone here at FPC call a prize Bengal kitten shot at a Moscow cat show "an ordinary cat"... INeverCry 03:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
    Of course I know what kind of Felidae it is, but I call all members of that family "cats", even Bengal tigers. And IMO bobcats are the coolest and greatest of all felines, hence I was very reluctant to 'oppose' this (and on top of that 'promote' that creapy spider above), but here it is all about the photo. w.carter-Talk 08:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Not sharp enough, in my opinion. Rarity is not so much of a factor when you are photographing an animal at a zoo. Try to get a clearer photo of the feline. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Unfortunately the shallow DoF spoils it for me - only the head is in focus. —Bruce1eetalk 06:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:2016 Gebaeude Grosser Feldberg ks01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2016 at 14:59:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info all by -- Kreuzschnabel 14:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info Buildings and towers on the Großer Feldberg, Taunus, Germany. At last managed to be there for sunrise this morning. Got them all in first sunlight, the leftmost mast casting its shadow onto the rightmost tower nearly horizontally. I also like the shadow of the near low barrier covering the entire path. Stitched panorama of 6 exposures, therefore high level of detail.
  •  Neutral as author -- Kreuzschnabel 14:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Admirable sharpness -- Spurzem (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressive light. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support w.carter-Talk 18:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting shapes and light. INeverCry 19:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Love the stark shapes against the sky. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Clear lines, restful composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice atmosphere. However, white dust speck in mid-air.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Åkerbräckans kyrkogård och södra hamnen i Lysekil.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 21:59:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Sweden
  •  Info Not quite sure if composite images like this with the sort of unnatural sharpness in odd places that comes from stitching are allowed as FPCs. If not, please let me know. It was fun to make though, so I'll give it a try. A small treat is all the annotations on the file page. Take a look. :) - All by me -- w.carter-Talk 21:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- w.carter-Talk 21:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very nice. I have a similar photo by you in my queue of possible FP nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Sounds intriguing. Btw, have you found the oil tanker on top of the roofs yet? :) --w.carter-Talk 07:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • In the distance! I'm not sure I noticed it before. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The cloud line puts what is otherwise a QI of a Swedish harbor over the edge. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with you, and many FPs are all about capturing a special moment, either by sheer luck or infinite patience. The boats in the right places and no cars on the road were also very lucky (ok, I did wait for the sailboats with spinnakers to come out from behind the cliff and the freight boat to approach the dock) and hard-to-repeat-things. w.carter-Talk 08:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not very engaging composition, specially at bottom, + white in background a bit blown Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Christian -- Thennicke (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ralf Roleček 21:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Neither scenery nor composition are exciting enough --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Trski ohridsko ezero 2014.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 21:54:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info created by Darkocv - uploaded by Darkocv - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question - It looks beautiful but both the sky and water seem a little strange to me. Is it overexposed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition, good colors – beautiful for me -- Spurzem (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, grainy sky and there is something weird going on in the upper right part of the sky at full size. Colors are interesting though. w.carter-Talk 11:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Spurzem. --Dэя-Бøяg 19:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 20:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Even if it weren't overprocessed, I don't think the composition worked quite as well as the photographer had hoped. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Ara bleu (Planète Sauvage, Pornic).JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 21:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ivor Novello.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 16:48:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Odocoileus virginianus fawn, Owen Conservation Park, Madison, Wisconsin.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2016 at 11:09:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •  Info created by John Benson - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1eetalk 11:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- —Bruce1eetalk 11:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose These are skittish and hard to shoot creatures so hiding behind bushes to get them is a must, but having its front legs substituted by an unsharp plant is a no-go for me. The fawn is adorable and very sharp, still the composition is very unfortunate. --w.carter-Talk 12:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It is a pity. But the front legs should be to see. The blurred plant instead of that is very disturbing. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. Too bad, otherwise it’s a fine shot. --Kreuzschnabel 14:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others; the placement of that plant in the front is unfortunate. Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. INeverCry 20:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I have to agree with the others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  moderate Too many bad vibes... this is a very good shot - only the unfortunate placement of the plant prevents it from being truly awesome. On the other side: As the fawn is utterly skittish by nature, being partially hidden by plants helps convey the idiosyncratic trait of this animal to the viewer - without hiding too much in the end. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Impressive I find. You could crop the blurred plants on the right side a bit. The blurred plant in the foreground I first doesn’t noticed it so it's hardly a problem for me even if it's a bit unlucky. My focus when I look at the picture is on the deer and the atmosphere of the picture. --Hockei (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Sus scrofa f. domestica Hängebauchschwein.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2016 at 22:17:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
  •  Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 00:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Klasse. ..Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Swell. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I can practically smell it with this detail ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support flawless --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Hello Gorgeous! --w.carter-Talk 08:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail is impressive but the whole picture is overexposed IMHO, or at least overprocessed, since the white parts on the top (see annotation) are definitely blown and melted into one white area. As for composition, I don’t see anything special here, and I usually don’t find up-down views onto animals (or, worse, children) too attractive. My personal opinion of course, but altogether this lacks wow for me plus shows quality flaws, though EV is certainly given. --Kreuzschnabel 10:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, but agree with Kreuzschnabel. Our main- and sub- categorys show me much better exposed images: Category:Pot-bellied_pig_in_zoos. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For FP I think a picture on eye level (of the animal ;-) would be a reasonable viewpoint --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Berthold Werner. This is a very good image but it has that touch of human taking a photo of an animal. If you have lowered the camera position, you would have transported the viewer into the world of pigs. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info I made a better update. The whole picture is not overexposed and is not overprocessed. Kreuzschnabel please have a look. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Better but I still don’t like the looking-down perspective. Admittedly, nearly all shots of this species on Commons have been taken that way, one of the exceptions being this one which isnt featurable for other reasons but gives a better impression of the animal. --Kreuzschnabel 04:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose seems over-exposed and photographer should have got lower. Charles (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Paisajes cerca de Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 84.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2016 at 05:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info created and uploaded by User:Poco a poco - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I really like the contrast between the parched earth and clear blue sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 05:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support You know what? If I had shot a picture in the Atacama desert every 5 km 99% of them would look like this one :) the exception would have been this one with a solitary tree in the middle of nothing. Thank you for the nomination, Ikan! Poco2 05:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • You're welcome! Thanks for the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Btw, have you seen Wally there? :) Poco2 06:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The burro? Sure. I enjoyed looking at him. His eyes are closed, though. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Code (talk) 07:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --w.carter-Talk 11:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support for Wally ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Flat half-desert country, nothing extra. Maybe, if the donkey could be much more close to the photograph, it could look better. --Karelj (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose QI for sure, but per Karelj--Christof46 (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Love the depth of field and the perspective ... shows you how vast the desert is. Love that you can't pick out the donkey at first, and when you do it just makes you feel that much more the vastness of the desert. Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Diego. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose nice, but not enough for an FP-image for me. The cut off plant in the middle is additional a no go. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
    Alchemist-hp: I've got rid of the "additional no go" (by improving the left crop) Poco2 19:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ¡Qué burrada! --Basotxerri (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
     :) Poco2 20:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria in Cosmedin (Rome) - Ciborium.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2016 at 20:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • 1) The perspective isn't very fortunate. It's neither central nor is it really a double point perspective. It just looks as there was no space in the middle so the photographer simply stepped at the right. It doesn't look as if the photographer really had a creative concept.
  • 2) The top crop is bad IMO because a part of the arc is cut (ok, maybe this alone wouldn't be a reason for an oppose vote).
  • 3) The bottom crop isn't good as well because of the cut chairs in the foreground (ok, maybe this alone wouldn't be a reason for an oppose vote, too).
  • 4) The whole picture seems to be distorted a little bit, maybe there's some barrel distortion.
  • 5) The picture has a severe lack of detail (look at the icons at both sides) which may be caused by increasing the contrast too much and adding too much clarity. It's oversharpened as well which makes the picture look like a painting, at least partially.
  • 6) There are some blown out parts at the left and in the background.
  • 7) The white balance is too cold (at the top the walls look nearly blue) (ok, maybe that's a matter of taste).
Sorry but do you really consider this to be one of our finest church interiors we're hosting here on Wikimedia Commons? Apart from that, it's a wonderful church which deserves a much better picture. Livio lives in Rome, he could easily go there again and take a much better picture (HDR, central perspective, better postprocessing). A better version would definitely get my support. --Code (talk) 07:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Sorry, I agree with Code. It might be the best image of this church to be found with a google image search, but that isn't the standard we should be aiming for. I also don't find it to be a particularly interesting or beautiful church. That's not the main reason for the oppose though, but it does mean that it should be an even more technically excellent image to have the necessary wow for FP IMO. Diliff (talk) 08:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agrre mostly with Code. Especially the non centered composition bothers me. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fully agree with Code. Plus the columns on the left lean out in a funny curved way. There is some severe distortion in this shot. Sorry, but this is way below FP standard for church interiors set by Diliff’s masterpieces. --Kreuzschnabel 13:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Can't really add to what Code said. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Haanja 2010 01 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2016 at 17:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info created and uploaded by Vaido Otsar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support great! --Ralf Roleček 17:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Classic. This is how I prefer days like that: In a picture, and not having to dig out the car from the snow and hope it starts... ;) w.carter-Talk 17:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ivar (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I dissent. Arbitrary-looking crops in front on the left and right, and the composition really doesn't add up to me, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Easy support in the same way I would easily support pictures of beautiful tropical beaches in mid-February. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The light is beautiful, true, but that alone does not make a featurable pic. I can’t see any composition here, it’s an arbitrary crop of a winter scenery. Could benefit from a warmer WB, as clean snow is usually not blue. --Kreuzschnabel 13:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per other opposers. Nice but not enough for an FP-image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per other opposers. --Karelj (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice handling of colors; good detail; great mood. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Frank. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 19:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Lech da Pertan y Fermedes sun Mastlé.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2016 at 12:04:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice! --Basotxerri (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice place, and excellent composition, but it is too soft for me, and the white cloud in the middle is absolutely not good.--Jebulon (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support like a painting, nice. --Ralf Roleček 16:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support w.carter-Talk 17:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed a bit soft but very beautiful -- Spurzem (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Moroder: Is it possible to upload raw file of this? I could try to fix overexposed cloud and softness issues. --Ivar (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes it is possible, but what for? The cloud is just white and NOT overexposed, please check the histogram. I have been blamed for gray snow and now for white clouds. Up here with the crisp air you more easily find white clouds than in Paris or on the Atlantic Ocean ;-). Besides, I looove smooth images as many reviewers. Thanks for your comment. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • ...I like the soft painting-like style of the pic. w.carter-Talk 11:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral as it is. The cloud is overexposed - water reflection of the same cloud has details and it's not pure white. --Ivar (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Very perspicous observation of the mirror image. I will look for the RAW file which I don't have on my computer right away and upload it on your behalf. Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
+1 I agree with Ivar, furthermore all images of the earth, even the more overexposed ones, can have a histogram ok if you if you edit them enough (e.g. overexposed image remapped to grey or with highlight strongly decreased can have a histogram ok, that's change nothing on the fact the camera did not register any details)...and I also agree with Ivar the edition can be improved here. Nice place and composition despite the overexposed cloud. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 20:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support despite the cloud related issue --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Reguyla (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Any repair to the cloud would be welcome, but frankly I just see it as one of the tradeoffs that had to be made for a picture that has otherwise worked out rather well. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - This photo is beautiful and a harmonious composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me, the softness adds to the overall mood of the image. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 19:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ----Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --King of ♠ 23:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Santa Cecilia (Rome) - Ceiling.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2016 at 17:18:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info I thought to explain the light matter (White balance, for example), however, I thought that showing the problem with an image would be easier --The Photographer (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good also. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ralf Roleček 19:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Perhaps still better -- Spurzem (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 22:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - With the caveat that I wasn't there, this version looks better to me. Neither version is near perfect, as the lower right and left corners are fuzzy, but I'm willing to tolerate that in view of the quality of the resolution of the fresco. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC) - I can't support this alt version with the photographer stating that the colors are wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support both versions are fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I prefer this one. w.carter-Talk 08:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Zcebeci (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too yellow, too warm.--Jebulon (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I like warm colors. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support On the whole this works better. Daniel Case (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Reguyla (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Dэя-Бøяg 19:30, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ----Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wrong colors --LivioAndronico (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
If color were an intrinsic property of an object, and it was only the perceived color that changed under different lighting conditions, you could match the object’s intrinsic color in printed output, say, under any lighting conditions, and the colors would then match under all conditions. However, because color is not an intrinsic property of the object but rather a sensation, the only thing you can match is the sensation that a particular color induces in your visual sensory system. That sensation will change under different lighting conditions, and it will usually change differently for different objects. So the best you can do is match colors under specific lighting conditions --The Photographer (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /Note: this candidate has several alternatives, thus if featured the alternative parameter needs to be specified. /FPCBot (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2016 (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:Eskibel - Paisaje.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 18:45:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Aeolian Islands at sunset.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 18:16:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Comment Yes esteban, I know....is the beautiful,blue sky,red sky and island. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting and beautiful -- Spurzem (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many posterized and unsharp areas. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Daniel is not pasteurized is the rarefied air ..... anyway where would unsharp? thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Túnel natural, Hartelholz, Múnich, Alemania, 2016-04-03, DD 05.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 17:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •  Info Natural tunnel with a viewer at the back :) in Hartelholz Forest, Munich, Germany. All by me, Poco2 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Poco2 17:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice doggy (and tunnel)! :) But there is red CA on most of the branches at the top. w.carter-Talk 19:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Has an almost hand-painted appearance. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Loojangu värvid 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 15:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kreta - Kournas-See.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 08:39:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Trifolium pratense - Keila.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 06:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •  Info Red clover (Trifolium pratense), all by Ivar (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose WB if off, and the image looks oversharpened (see dark lines at the countours) --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Uoaei1: WB was not off, look at shooting time (or maybe you haven't seen orange light during golden hour?). Leaf edges of the red clover are sometimes dark red, look this --Ivar (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I have also added the Category:Plants and trees at golden hour (set up some new cats since the first one was getting crowded) to the pic, same as I did to your previous flower. Perhaps you should remember to add that in the future to keep misunderstandings to a minimum. w.carter-Talk 10:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The droplets really make this golden-hour flower special. Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Modelo didatico bovino correto.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2016 at 00:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alt version

  •  Info It's not a correction, it's a restoration from original file, because, IMHO Arion nomination has destructive alterations like oversharpening, overexposition and color saturation, btw, I preffer a black background, remembering that it's only my opinion --The Photographer (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Really a nice work, thanks! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support This has evident relevance for Wikipedias! Joalpe (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As a Wikipedian, I thank you. :) w.carter-Talk 16:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 19:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 19:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Pole with tension weight for overhead lines.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 21:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016.07.04.-26-Eilenburg-Ost--Distelfalter.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 17:04:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 14:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •  Info created by Giorgi Balakhadze - uploaded by Giorgi Balakhadze - nominated by Giorgi Balakhadze -- g. balaxaZe 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- g. balaxaZe 14:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Welcome to FPC, Giorgi Balakhadze! It's really a good start, but being a cell phone camera, the level of detail is somewhat limited. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Very weak support per Arion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I would suggest cloning out that black thing at top left in the sky. Good to see a nomination not shot with a multi-1000$ camera/lense. INeverCry 18:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It is a beautiful scene, but I think the level of detail should have been a bit better here for an FP. This is not your fault, it's just us being very picky here. I also think you should nominate these for Quality Image and one of them for Valued image. We would also appreciate if you could provide the coordinates for the camera location on the files so that they can be displayed on OpenStreetMap and Google Earth. Please look at this files page to see how that is done. w.carter-Talk 19:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice scenery, and the quality is quite good for a cell phone - but not enough for FP level. Details are too unsharp, and parts in shadow are too dark and noisy. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Black Cliffs' Lake, Lagodekhi Protected Area, Georgia 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 13:50:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •  Comment well, given the miniscule size of the camera's sensor (4mm diagonal), the f-stop as such is more than adequate. The lack of sharpness (at least when compared to more advanced photographic systems) is due to the sensor itself. This being said, the picture's still good enough imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Striking, especially that cloud shadow. Also the effort of getting these photos (reading the description) rivals this nom. w.carter-Talk 19:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of details. I also miss something special in this scenery. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me this image is very good. Perhaps we could look for lacks but we should not overdo. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Four-spotted chaser (Libellula quadrimaculata) female dorsal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 12:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •  Info all by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Charles (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support An absolutely stunning creature, but I am a little bothered by the sharpness of that grass it is sitting on. It seems almost "attached" to the dragonfly's head. There is another sharp grass up right that could be blended in with the rest of the bokeh. Thoughts? w.carter-Talk 13:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Done I've removed the bit of grass as you suggested. Charles (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Maybe a very very little bit oversharpened, and background a very very little bit noisy, but what a marvel ! I would like to know how to take such pictures ! Congratulations.--Jebulon (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support INeverCry 18:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Isasza (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Frecce tricolori Air show Valtenesi del Garda Manerba .jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 06:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Junonia atlites-Kadavoor-2016-06-23-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 05:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Zaadpluizen van Cirsium vulgare in mild avondlicht. Locatie, De Famberhorst 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2016 at 05:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.