Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Kandidater till utvalda bilder

Det här är kandidater till att bli utvalda bilder.

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

Det finns också en kronologisk lista av utvalda bilder.

NomineringEdit

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

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

OmröstningsreglerEdit

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

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

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

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

KandidaterEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Coriander Seeds.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 20:02:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Anfiteatro de Pula, Croacia, 2017-04-17, DD 13-18 HDR PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 18:03:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info View during the blue hour of the exterior of the Pula Arena, an amphitheatre located in Pula, Croatia. This Roman edifice was constructed between 27 BC and 68 AD and is among the largest surviving Roman arenas in the world. At the same time, is the best preserved ancient monument in Croatia and the only remaining amphitheater having all four side towers with all three Roman architectural orders entirely preserved. Poco2 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good job, congrats. --Selbymay (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Gentiana acaulis (stemless gentian).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 17:38:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:All Saints Orthodox church in Suwałki, Poland 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 16:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Börnste, Feld -- 2017 -- 3171.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 20:23:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Gondorf, der Oberburg Dm foto8 2017-06-01 12.53.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 20:00:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Galgenwaard at night matchday.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 16:24:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Livioandronico2013: This is a football stadium at night during a football match. WikiZeven (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Several quality issues; perspective, chromatic aberrations, general lack of sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Abandon building insurgentes niza mexico.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 15:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing of interesting for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, and I would have nominated this photo, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Livio --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I guess supporters like the black and yellow pattern of the building seen in front view but it's not enough to create a FP. I don't find the picture attractive, I maybe would appreciate better a wider view, or a more creative vision. --Selbymay (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Livio this time. --Laitche (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting, but I don't really see a wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Schloss Augustusburg, Southern Facade, November 2017 -02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 11:48:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Cindy's Produce apples LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 03:51:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Food
  • 8 varieties of apples at Cindy's Produce, and a pumpkin. Peace. -- PumpkinSky talk 03:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Your photo is so inspiring, that I had to eat an apple right now. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." And in the afternoon I will prepare myself a delicious pumpkin soup. ;-) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Glad you were inspired to eat healthy food! I LOVE anything made with pumpkin (no surprise given my username): pie, bread, muffins, soup, Thai curry, desserts, ice cream, donuts, etc. PumpkinSky talk 04:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment Aren`t pumpkins a devine present of Our Lord to us humans? -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support - A pleasant spread and composition. Doesn't awe me, but I think it's a good and pleasant enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. An iconic picture of American life, at least to us foreigners. ;) I would like it even more if you could perhaps remove that blurry orange thing top center, it's a bit distracting. This is the kind of good everyday life photos we need more of here. --cart-Talk 12:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment @W.carter: I had to both smile and chuckle. I'm glad you liked it so much and think it's iconic, but I'd never thought of it as iconic; I guess because I see this stuff all the time. The content aware fill worked great. It's better than cloning. I've only used CAF a few times before. I don't use PS a lot but when I need it, it's great. PumpkinSky talk 12:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing the picture. It's "stuff we see all the time" that needs to be documented too, although such subjects are always hardest to get "wow-y" photos of. That shouldn't deter us, it's worth all the 'opposes' when you finally get one right. :) --cart-Talk 12:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 14:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --The hook that hangs like a sausage on the right side of the picture spoils the composition.--Ermell (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Ermell, just FYI, things hanging from posts, walls, and the ceiling are quite common in these sorts of places, at least on this side of the pond. IMHO the hook gives this a more rural character, which is what this is, a rural produce stand. PumpkinSky talk 17:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment You mean it's part of the composition? For me, it looks like it accidentally came into the picture. The hook doesn't make sense because it could be a sausage as well.--Ermell (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI, for FP i miss more apples here, they make low % of pic. --Mile (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Tallmon 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 03:41:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
  •   Info created + uploaded by Pixpep - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 03:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 03:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support stunning PumpkinSky talk 03:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There are things I don't like and I wish the wire was not there but I can't stop from agreeing this should be supported. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per PumpkinSky. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I wish I saw the tops of more trees, but the light is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The beauty of Nature!!! Gorgeous snap. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support YESSSSS! --Basotxerri (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Big WOW! --Code (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support !! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Of course! When I first saw this at the Swedish WLE, I hesitated to nominate it here because of some small tech shortcomings, so I'm very glad to see that people here can now look beyond such things and see only the beauty of the photo. --cart-Talk 12:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 14:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ---Ermell (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support All said, Poco2 17:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I did a reverse image search and found a whole lot of hits from before it was uploaded here. Thankfully (sort of), that looks to be because the uploader had it on his Flickr account since 2015. It's "all rights reserved" there, however, so @Pixpep: please go through COM:OTRS to make it "official" that you are the owner of the copyright. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
      Comment Thanks for the find. Pixpep's only activity was uploading some images to WLE, so it's rather unlikely that they reply here; however, maybe, someone of our colleagues who are active on Flickr too (e.g. Code, Poco a poco) could contact Peter Nilsson there to make sure it's the same person and the CC license on Commons is approved. --A.Savin 17:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    I've also left a message for Axel Pettersson (WMSE), who tagged the image with WLE, just in case it was perhaps through some outreach that the user uploaded these files (or some other circumstance that could allow for off-wiki contact/knowledge). — Rhododendrites talk |  18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    @A.Savin: I left a comment on Flickr. --Code (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 06:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice - DerFussi 14:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Manhattan Executive Apartments from Glebe Park, Canberra ACT.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 00:23:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • What's wrong with the lighting? -- Thennicke (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is no wow factor and the picture looks like just another building. Sorry!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:India - Kolkata electricity meters - 3832.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 00:16:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Prismo345: Why's that? Your oppose is fine, but you have to provide a reason. Do you not like the lack of contrast, or what? -- Thennicke (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I change my mind, and I support it, okay? :)   | Prismo (talk. | contr.) 16:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Too cluttered, hard for the eye to find a focal point. HalfGig talk 03:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great image! --Yann (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a "God bless this mess and be thankful that it works" kind of image. Great capture. --cart-Talk 12:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Prismo345 (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Although the sharpness on the left hand side is diminishing, the picture has a strong expressiveness and charm. The apparent disorder is in its own way somehow orderly.--Ermell (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great image especially the expression of the boy and his pose. The background also reveals the complex connections :) --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Garaio - Embalse de Ullíbarri-Gamboa - Playa 08.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 19:16:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Sorry, I have no idea but there were really lots of them. Also I'm not sure if these are stationary (which I don't think) or if they are on its way from Northern Europe to Africa. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I've just had a look to another telephoto shot and it makes me think that the waterfowls are coots. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ...which you can see on KoH's Golden Gate Park image, too... --Basotxerri (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The only reason I haven't supported this is because of that cut waterline/beach curve on the right side. You don't happen to have a version that includes the whole curve (and maybe something more on the left side as balance) somewhere in your archives? --cart-Talk 20:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I knew that someone would find that flaw. The problem is that I'm rather a Lightroomer rather than a Photoshopper and I won't be able to fix it, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support although cart has a point. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Garaio - Embalse de Ullíbarri-Gamboa - Playa 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 19:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, yesterday I was lucky with the weather. Almost raining and grey all day, and then the sun came out for about half an hour and I was in the right place at the right time. Good light and dramatic clouds. Both images have been taken from almost the same point, one towards the lake, the other towards the parking lots. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support what a sky! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great scene and rich colors. --cart-Talk 12:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment If you would lean down, made path wider so would be more photogenical. Shot is interesting for comparing: in pano you feel joy, nature while in tight portrait its more screenshot for a horror movie. --Mile (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering what me made to shoot the image this way. I'm sure I tried to get down a bit but something seemed better in this composition. But indeed, this is an interesting subject for varying. Landscape, portrait, vanishing point in the centre or rule of thirds... --Basotxerri (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Bell in Japanese Garden NBG 100 crop LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 15:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Japanese Bell in the Japanese Garden at Norfolk Botanical Garden. All by me. Peace. -- PumpkinSky talk 15:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 15:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment FYI, the cache seems to have trouble. Please ensure you're looking at the latest version. Peace. PumpkinSky talk 00:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting motive, well balanced and amazing colors, especially the rusty brown bell. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Has an enchanting Zen-like ambiance. HalfGig talk 03:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per HalfGig. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Sapün (1600 meter) via Medergen (2000 meter) naar brug over Sapüner bach (1400 meter) 016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 06:07:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Santorin (GR), Fira, Drei Glocken von Fira -- 2017 -- 2589.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 05:09:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Greece
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 05:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 05:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better than the previous nom. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very strange mix of different element and one too many. Either the dome or the cliffs should go. I get the impression of a collage rather than a photo. Sorry. --cart-Talk 11:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. Either, but not both. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colors (maybe low contrast), cross is to much on the corner. --Mile (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Makhtesh Ramon (50785).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 01:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by me — Rhododendrites talk |  01:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Makhtesh Ramon in Israel's Negev Desert, viewed from the top of Mount Gvanim. Nominating because I like the range of geological features (forms, colors), characteristic of the place. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral. Very beautiful, but quality is not particularly high given the moderate resolution, especially on the sides. -- King of ♠ 02:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I could not bring a tripod and it was extremely windy up there (the "see how far you can lean forward without falling", hard to hear the person next to you sort of windy). I get what you're saying, though, and if I had a higher-end camera or took it from closer to the ground (or otherwise in less windy conditions), then the shot would likely have been better. Maybe if I go back someday. :) I'm happy with the result, though, and feel like it's still a good candidate for FP (we'll see, I suppose). — Rhododendrites talk |  05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. IMO, nothing really wrong with the quality --A.Savin 14:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Alexander. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 03:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak Support Weak 7 --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low quality. --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 08:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Catedral de María Reina del Mundo, Montreal, Canadá, 2017-08-12, DD 46-48 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 20:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info Cathedral-Basilica of Mary, Queen of the World, Montreal, Canada. The construction of the cathedral, ordered by Ignace Bourget, began in 1875 in order to replace the former Saint-Jacques Cathedral which had burned in 1852. The building is a scale model of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome and the new church was consecrated in 1894. In 2000 the cathedral was designated a National Historic Site of Canada. Poco2 20:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 20:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Prismo345 (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Nice. You really help your nominations by providing background. Would you consider adding it to the file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    Ikan:   Done, that is not something I have to consider, but something I've always done :) I didn't manage in the last weeks, so I fixed that for my last 30 FPs adding the description in English and in my mother tongue (that's why it took me longer to answer) Poco2 17:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 06:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Despite the sleeping guy at the right, or just because of him :) --A.Savin 14:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 15:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support So that's what you were off doing during Wikimania ... didn't hurt that it was across the street. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    Daniel: If I had visited this church or other churches during the Wikimania programme they would have been crowded. So I woke up earlier that day to be the first in Notre Dame cathedral and after that visited this church. I managed to be on time for the first conference that day. The say for evening shots. The best lighting is anyhow early in the morning or in the evening, so no timing issue here :) Poco2 12:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If you do PD then do it correct (pillars are not straight). Despite i dont like huge PD (circles of roof became elliptic) i would crop some above (anoted). You could retushe man out, so would be good FP. --Mile (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    That person really looked like a homeless, why should I clone it out? As said, a pattern between my noms and your votes. That doesn't really speak for you. Poco2 16:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Bad Kissingen Regentenbau Foyer 0417RM0625 -HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 20:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info all by me Ermell -- Ermell (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support --Prismo345 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Pretty and well composed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. I find this captivating. Excellent job. PumpkinSky talk 15:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Qualified support Definitely worthy, although I think something could be done about that CA and slightly greenish color cast around the window at upper right. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thanks for the tip. I've actually seen this more as daylight, but without it it actually looks better. --Ermell (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 22:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Its not so sharp, see small light bellow. Some part of luster is missing on top. --Mile (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Dish with fruits.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 19:44:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Fruits and raw vegetables
  •   Info Dish with fruits. My shot. Maybe i should call it Raw fruits dish ? -- Mile (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. The fruits are beautifully captured, but the tablecloth is distracting because 1) it is too similar in luminosity to the white plate and 2) the pattern is too ornate (the in-focus parts of it really draw the viewer's eyes away from the subject). -- King of ♠ 00:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful colors. Picture would have been even better if there was a wood background. But overall love the picture --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree, nice piece of wood. I was looking for some. --Mile (talk) 12:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very nice still life with fruit, and I find it perfectly natural for it to be on a table with a tablecloth. The decoration on the tablecloth is pleasant to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop is too tight, the pattern of the tablecloth is distracting (not to say ugly) and the dark top corners make the whole picture look unbalanced. I'd rather expect a featured still of fruits look like this [1], [2], [3]. --Code (talk) 07:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Yesterday i made 2 crops, one wider and one 16:9 Maybe on 16:9 is a bit narrow crop, so i put more space now, also added some vibrance since first was original. So all voters check again. --Mile (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC) @Code i dont like that darkness, maybe they were impressed by Dutch painters.
  •   Oppose I'm sorry, but to me the whole thing looks sterile, stark and not appetizing at all. When I see fruits photograped something like this, I would like to be tempted to eat them. The polyester table cloth with distracting pattern doesn't help either. --cart-Talk 11:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. Food photography needs to be arranged with a view to eating and to draw one towards the subject. Also an odd choice of fruit, unless you guys eat lemons like you do oranges. -- Colin (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support That poor apple, though. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin Poco2 07:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very good sharpness but with the charmlessness of a stockphoto.--Ermell (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Paesaggio marino a Mindano, Filippine, con bassa marea.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 08:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Mindanao, Philippines: tide is low, sunset is approaching and a dog is roaming arund serching for food. created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- Paolobon140 (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's a lovely scene and very aesthetic, however there are a few things that should have been found and corrected at QIC. The horizon is tilted, there is a bit of vignetting in the photo, some violet fringing and it also seems a bit overprecessed and not very sharp. I don't know how much of this can be fixed though. If some of the terms used in this review are unknown to you, you can read about them at COM:PT. --cart-Talk 17:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice photo but image quality is a bit low and I think the dog is superfluous. --Laitche (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - For me, this has wow, and I find the composition special and pretty comprehensive, with the dog being the focal point in the middle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It looks like tilted CW, the sharpness could be improved and IMO there are CAs at the lights. Please try to fix this. --XRay talk 06:55, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose Love the shot ... it's another one of those of what I call "Clocks" pictures (as in, you look at it and you can hear that piano riff). But the shallow depth of field shows ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Oops. See what happens when you do this late at night? Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good idea. A pity about the sharpness. Yann (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Dovresti concentrarti più sulla qualità o alternativa sul fattore WoW altrimenti questi ti massacrano   --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Beautiful beach scene if one after close inspection has found out that it is not a sea monster but a friendly dog. I consider the partial blurriness as part of the composition.--Ermell (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:United States President Barack Obama bends down to allow the son of a White House staff member to touch his head.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 13:41:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info This photo was taken in May 2009 and in all the articles written about Pete Souza's new book "Obama: An Intimate Portrait", this is an image the picture editors choose. The composition isn't perfect (the boy's dad's head is cropped), the focus isn't perfect (slightly back focused), but Souza only had time for one click and fortunately froze just the right moment. A photograph isn't just about technical attributes. The little boy asks "I want to know if my hair is just like yours". You can read the full transcript in this NY Times article, and Souza's own opinion of and story behind the photo on p38 of his book (currently being shown on his web page). Whereas most photos hung in the White House are rotated every few weeks, this one was kept up for three years. Its removal prompted protest from staff who regarded it as an important stop when taking people on a tour of the White House. So it went back up again till the end of Obama's term in office in 2017. The image shows the achievement of a black man in America and possibilities open to a black child: is he just like me; could I be just like him? It also shows the most powerful person of a most powerful nation bowing to a mere child and permitting intimacy. Souza took 1.9 million photos while following Obama's presidency, so I guess a few of them should be worth featuring! Created by Pete Souza - uploaded by O'Dea - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with you. Quite a nice illustration for "Head of State". ;) Yann (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose is not FP JukoFF (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • JukoFF, the rules at FPC require an explanation for an oppose vote. Simply saying "is not FP" is not a reason. Please note the FPC criteria include "Symbolic meaning or relevance" and that for FP wow factor can overcome technical shortcomings. This has become a historically important photo by a notable photographer. -- Colin (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
      • The photo is very, very, very poor quality, very bad focusing, cropped heads, blurred faces. Do not understand the uniqueness of this photo. Or do you think that this is a random photo and it was removed from the first and not the tenth attempt? JukoFF (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Souza wrote: "It happened so fast. I clicked just one picture". The aperture of f/2.8 does not permit much focus range, and the focus is more than acceptable for many print sizes. He also writes "Later, when I saw the picture blown up, I knew it was special". I suggest you buy a book of Magnum photos, many of which are regarded similarly as classics that make other photographers envious, and you might realise that most of them are really nothing special technically, with all sorts of focus, exposure and composition shortcomings. -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An unusual situation worthy of a feature. Trust a kid to surprise everyone. :) I'm also intrigued by the bent paper clip on the Resolute desk. --cart-Talk 14:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Croped head of person on left is very disturbing. At least photo cut have different crop to avoid that. --Mile (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. I visited an exhibition on Martin Parr's work last week. Barely any picture of his would survive here on FPC. Which is both sad and intriguing... for us. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The president's face is out of focus, not a very good photo - I expect better from a professional.--Peulle (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Come on, folks! This is a historic, iconic photo, and you're complaining about trivia? So what that it has technical shortcomings? This wasn't a posed photo - either you get it or you don't. You might as well nitpick to death the photo of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon if you're just going to ignore the historical and societal importance of a photo like this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the composition is just bothering me too much, even if it is a nice moment. I think this one is just as humbling/cute, and much better technically, so I'm judging against that very high standard -- Thennicke (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - That one has nowhere near the meaning or historical significance of this photo, as described above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thennicke (and others) you can't judge this against a posed photo, or against our other people photos taken in a studio or outdoors in bright light. This is one of those images, as Ikan puts it, of "historical and societal importance", and for that reason the technical aspects are just irrelevant. I have no doubt this photo will remain significant, as the symbolism is just too high. We are enormously lucky that Sousa's output is copyright-free, most other countries would have this image heavily licenced and making pot loads of money. Comments like "not a very good photo" or "very, very, very poor quality" are not only wrong but a sign you aren't really looking properly. When the world disagrees with you, and news photo editors all over the world love this image, it is time to re-evaluate your personal criteria for what makes a great image. The bit you all praise at FPC, sharpness, exposure, that's the bit done by Nikon and Canon and Sony, and frankly we don't deserve any praise for that. -- Colin (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the world does disagree with me, but that doesn't make me wrong - looking at an image is a subjective thing, and I'm not feeling the "wow" - just another picture of Obama to my eyes. Perhaps I needed the backstory or something before I looked at the image, so that I came to the task with preconceptions (and that's not intended as snarky). I agree that the story behind it is nice, as is the symbolism, but I am not judging this image from the same perspective as a magazine publisher or a news outlet. Yes we are lucky to have this image freely-licensed. But I hope you can see my opposition as legitimate by the standards of this particular forum - and no, I am not a pixel peeper, as you might've noticed; I admit to often reviewing images merely from the thumbnail. Arguments from authority don't impress me; there are plenty of "famous" photographs that would be rightly criticised here. Fame is often different from wow. Although I can see why you would nominate this if it is trending at the moment, and sorry for what might seem like a harsh opposition. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • And can I add that there is a political dimension to this; I don't think the same image would have been nominated here if it was Donald Trump in the frame. There is also a political element to what is considered "historical" and what is considered otherwise. I think it is best to respect peoples' differing opinions on this matter in an otherwise "apolitical" space. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • But I didn't nominate it because it is "trending at the moment", the photo is eight years old and was viral 5 years ago. The only reason the photo is getting current coverage is because of the 1.9 million photos Sousa took, this is one of handful that picture editors (and Sousa himself on his own web page) have selected as among the best. Yes there is politics about race, which is part of what makes this photo historically important, and part of what makes this photo possible is how accessible Obama was. But there are 101 reasons why you wont ever see a similar photo of Trump, and they are nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the kind of guy Trump is. Well, if take a photo of a person, aspects of that person come out, and we're seeing that here. That's what makes a successful photo. In contrast, Trump's recent photos have all the charm of a school photo. -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, sorry, trending 5 years ago - my mistake. Yes this image shows Obama's personality, but so does the other one, with much better image quality. All I'm trying to say is that we've got 2 FPs featuring Obama already, zero of Bush and zero of Trump, and that reflects not the photographic merit of the images, but whether we as a community consider them "historical" - it's a question of values, otherwise we wouldn't see them nominated in the first place. To elaborate on the point, 3/5 of the images in the 1990-now section are of 9/11 (with another in the unsorted area). Our community chose to nominate those images, and that shows what they care about. Obviously there is bias in this community; most of us are westerners and so forth. What I am saying here is that the "it's a historical image" argument bothers me when we already have such a bias. -- Thennicke (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Focal point is on the desk, of camerman with 1.9 million shots !? Lot of profs are using Auto mode, which can be much more clever than a man. For more see Do professionals use auto mode?. Its still too ordinary shot. If this would be JFK in Dallas in 1963, that would make much more sense. Otherwise i saw many more similar videos of Trump than Obama, and if someone made shot here we go. --Mile (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin and Ikan. Yeah, maybe it could be better cropped in, but photos like these, as Souza, just happen, and you either get them when they do or you don't. The bad crops and poor focus at left are necessary to make this point that this just up and happened ... they emphasize the spontaneity of the event depicted. Daniel Case (talk) 07:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice snapshot, the kid's eyes over Obama's head simply catch ours :) --Selbymay (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For others --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral --Prismo345 (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Maybe not the best photo ever taken but if lack of "wow" can be a reason to oppose, my seeing "wow" is enough to justify. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The focus is unfortunately on the desk but the picture is good enough to endure this.--Ermell (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Houtzagerij Sagi Tschiertschen 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 07:46:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Sawing machine.
  •   Info Sawmill Sagi Tschiertschen. sawing machine. For me, this picture is nostalgic memories of the middle of the last century. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 07:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 14:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Dэя-Бøяg 00:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I sort of see what you were seeing, and I love the texture, but on the whole it just doesn't feel like an FP for me. Some of the closeups in the annotations might have a chance, though. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 22:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Prismo345 (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Queensboro Bridge New York October 2016 003.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Nov 2017 at 02:41:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 02:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question What are the two light spots, see annotations? Can you cancel them? --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I'm sorry, I'd love to support a photo of this bridge, but in this case, it's a photo of part of the bridge (I guess from Roosevelt Island), facing the uninteresting Queens side. I remember walking over this bridge in the late afternoon years ago and seeing the yellow sunlight glinting off the old factories further north than shown in the picture, which made them look kind of beautiful. I think this scene probably looked more beautiful to you in person, but I don't think the light is special enough to make the view that interesting, and the cutoff of the bridge bothers me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Classical but very good job. --Selbymay (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It works. --Mile (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 18:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • PumpkinSky Could you please sign your vote above to make it valid. --cart-Talk 17:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Gorgeous snap --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Another WLM-US submission that, this time, did meet with a lot of judicial approval. I'm not bothered by it being of the Queens side ... I have a feeling Long Island City will grow more in the future, and this picture may capture a moment in its development that will be past sooner than we realize. Also, at least this way you get that feel of the city at sunset, something that would be different from the opposite side as you'd have a lot of backlit buildings (I suppose someone could try that at sunrise, though ... it might get that quality of the view of which Fitzgerald wrote ("the city seen from the Queensboro Bridge is always the city as seen for the first time") Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Khandoba temple Pune.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2017 at 13:37:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I have changed the FP category. This is a photo of a huge crowd and religious worship, which takes place at this temple. -- Colin (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info created and uploaded by PKharote - nominated by Selbymay (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC) - This picture won the first prize for WLM in India this year. It's rare to see this kind of monument with the crowd around during a celebration in this competition and it adds much in value - aesthetic as encyclopedic.
  •   Support Selbymay (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Time ago without see a amazing and spectacular image like this. Right moment, amazing point of view, composition, historic moment and situation, quality, charming and a long list of amazing for this image. Some things could be better, for example not having cut the structure similar to a Christmas tree in the lower right, also the arm of the person on the left, however, totally minuscule comments compared to the grandiosity of this spectacular photo and possibly image of the year --The Photographer 14:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now because of perspective issues - verticals should be vertical. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • As it's an awarded picture, I think we don't have to edit it, unless you want to upload an alternative version, even if I don't see the necessity. I put the proposition in the category Religious buildings but the main subject is not the temple but the celebration, it's more a news image than an architectural view. --Selbymay (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I disagree, Uoaei1. The purpose of this photo is not to be an architectural shot. The camera appears to be pointing slightly down, and so that is the perspective. -- Colin (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • What ever this is, the perspective issue disturbs me, otherwise I would not have opposed. The only result of my vote is probably that you have to wait a couple of days longer to receive the FP star. --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Uoaei1 by why you are "disturbed" enough to oppose? [though we all know why Livio opposes] There is an expectation in architectural photography that we present a perpendicular view in rectilinear projection and at sufficient distance to avoid exessive wide-angle distortion. But the purpose of the photography here is to give the observer's view of the event. We have people on a high position throwing turmeric on a crowd below. The obvious direction of view is to the crowd. You wouldn't, at this point, look straight ahead at the towers across, so neither should our perspective give that impression. The angle here is a good compromise between a direct look down and keeping level enough to retain the top of the spires. I simply think it is factually wrong to describe this as a "perspective issue". The perspective is correct and a valid one. If you don't like the view and angle, then fine that is merely a matter of taste, but let's not confuse that with any technical fault that isn't there. -- Colin (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
        • @Colin: When I see these leaning verticals, I feel disturbed - not more and not less. And I see that a correction would be easy. Do you want to discuss my personal impressions? Please be respectful and accept my vote. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
          • I can be respectful if you express your opinion as a matter of taste/feeling. But a statement like "verticals should be vertical" or a complaint about "perspective issues" is simply factually and optically wrong. Furthermore, it gives a bad indication to photographers thinking of nominating at FPC that we have rather odd and limited ideas of what is valid (vs what is enjoyed or disliked), or to photographers trying to improve their photography, that someone this image has a fundamental technical flaw. -- Colin (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
            • @Colin: I refer to the image quality rules - so what is wrong or insufficient, or even simply factually and optically wrong? And before you explain me that this rule just applies to architecture photography, just have a look in what category this is nominated! --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
              • Uoaei1, as you already know, this rule only applies to architecture photography, and even then only for a certain style of architecture photography -- we have several examples that rightly deviate from the rule the camera must be pointing directly level or up. This sort of rigidity of thinking, that there is only one correct way, discourages creative photography. See Dreyfus model of skill acquisition for where "rules" sits in one's journey. The category is not, in fact, what the image has been nominated to be judged for, though it can be helpful if chosen well. If you remember, in the past, those who maintain our FP galleries used to decide where to put each photo, which isn't always easy as a photo can apply in several categories. It was then decided to pass that job onto the nominator. We've gone from the task being done by those familiar with the categories and their maintenance, to the task being done by novices. So we now very frequently find the nominator hasn't chosen well, and the nomination gets these sort of comments about this irrelevance. If you haven't spotted the crowd of hundreds of people, being showered by saffron in an act of religious worship, then you're looking at a different picture to me :-). -- Colin (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Spectacular scene. -- Colin (talk)
  •   Support Wow. That's what FP is for! --Yann (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazed also as a jury member of WLM India :) Poco2 18:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful! Top-down photos are always hard, if not impossible, to correct and here a slight tilt doesn't matter. My main concern is: How do you keep your camera clean with all that powder flying around! :) --cart-Talk 18:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For Uoaei1,terrible terrible... --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great action shot, just an amazing image. I don't give a damn about verticals being parallel in this kind of image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderfully NatGeo-ish! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question PKharote, one request: Presumably, the occasion is Holi. Could the fact that pigments are being thrown to celebrate Holi be added to the file description? I wonder, too, whether there's a category for Holi. If so, it should be added for this file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Tried to improve the description with links. Jee 04:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jee. That's interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Gnosis either you are trolling, confused, or lead such an extraordinary life that this is meh. Either way, I don't think your vote rationale is worth piss. -- Colin (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Fixing the perspective could result in a cut composition that IMHO is a generate another problem. --The Photographer 14:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Even more impressive in full view. Absolutely. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support DerFussi 14:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Park San Francisco December 2016 003.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2017 at 04:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment @Livioandronico2013: If an image is not interesting for me I can not say that it is bad. Than my vote is neutral or I say nothing. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent composition, very good colors. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

*  Neutral As much as I'd like to support, it's the white car in the middle that brakes the deal for me. Any chance to clone it out? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The car brakes the deal?   Good one! Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Hah! The best unintentional pun I've made in quite a while! ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It would be rather hard to remove because of its reflection, and I don't really like altering reality by too much. How about I burn the area a bit - would that be enough for you? -- King of ♠ 02:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • After reconsidering I'll give my   weak support. We should leave reality alone ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm not bothered by the car, although it would not affect my !vote if it were cloned out. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 14:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Note: If the car can be cloned well, I'm for.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see here a quite ordinary city park scene and the longer I look at the picture the less I can discover the reason for an FP eligibility. Where is the WOW effect? Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I've burned the car in the middle to make it a little less distracting. -- King of ♠ 00:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Tschiertschen (1350 meter) in Graubünden 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2017 at 19:06:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural# Switserland
  •   Info Tschiertschen (1350 meter) in Graubünden. Sun rises above Tschiertschen. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Creative juxtaposition of different elements. -- King of ♠ 04:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Pretty nice mood with the mountains but too many cropped and disturbing elements make the composition unbalanced. --Selbymay (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would remove concrete fence (bottom crop - annoted), would get more panoramic and made some PD of house. --Mile (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment @PetarM:Thank you for your suggestion. See alternative.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition does not work for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For some reason too many intersecting objects in the composition make it un-interesting. Sorry!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 03:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Sanjay. I can see what you were thinking but it just isn't coming through. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This is much more splendid view. In winter this could be very top compo. --Mile (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong   Oppose No improvement. Lots of sky, mountains and house right at the borders, strage crop. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

File:61-220-0107 Nyrkiv Castle 2 RB.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2017 at 16:27:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info created by Rbrechko - uploaded by Rbrechko - nominated by Rbrechko -- Rbrechko (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rbrechko (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is nice but the castle ruins are quite unsharp, I'd like to see more visual impact. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri, and also, the forest is unsharp as well, and not spectacular to me. I think a photo of this motif that's sharper and eliminates most of the forest could be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful light, mood and composition. I especially appreciate how the thick forest and the vegetation seems to slowly swallow the ruins. --Selbymay (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Elcapitanclimbers.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2017 at 23:37:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports OR Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Lights of Climbers staying over night in the wall of El Capitan as seen from Yosemite valley. I only realized by seeing the lights late after dark that the routes take several days for most climbers. I think this picture nicely illustrates the climbing section of the article and provides a unique view on climbing in the valley. Created by C-M - uploaded by C-M - nominated by C-M -- C-M (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- C-M (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful, but I don't think it enters the sports category --Prismo345 (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but should really just be Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural, the climbers are barely visible. -- King of ♠ 02:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is an interesting capture and subject. However the mountain and lights are not sharp -- either the focus was more on the trees or the camera moved slightly in the long exposure. Your other shot (File:Elcapitanclimbers-2.jpg) is sharp and the camping climbers are even visible in places, though it doesn't have the starry sky. Perhaps a slightly stopped-down aperture would have helped along with increased ISO. I think I'd probably support the #2 even though this one catches the eye more in thumb. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Per Colin. I'd prefer #2 - also for the visually highly interesting verticals (trees...) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Enchanting. It's the little lights matching the star constellations and the harmonious cliff/sky color that make this scene, "...on earth as it is in heaven". --cart-Talk 09:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just to make it even harder to decide I added a third version, this times in landscape. I agree that the sharpness of #2 is slightly better and I also like the structure of the trees - but, and that is the reason why I prefer this one: they diminish the actual size of the wall as the trees seem to have the same hight. However, if there is a large majority for one of the other two pictures I am happy to change. --C-M (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Pinging Colin, Martin Falbisoner, Prismo345 and King of Hearts to let them know that alts are available. --cart-Talk 20:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blurred. -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK, I like this one too. Yes it's blurred a little but I think it best makes clear that the lights on the cliffs are its subject. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this one better than the other versions. The portrait version expresses the height better than the landscape variant. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The third is better. Yann (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Alt 2Edit

 

  •   Support I think there are two aspects to this. One is a night photo of the mountain, with stars and strange dots of light on the cliff face. Another is a photo documenting the night camps of climbers on this mountain. I think the second aspect is what fascinates us and raises this above any photo of stars and mountains, and is educational rather than just pretty. And it is only really this photo that is (a) sharp of the mountain itself and (b) clear enough to see several climbers in their light spots. The trees reaching for the sky are good, though I accept the argument above that they may give an impression the mountain is smaller than it is. I also wonder why the colour is so different in this one compared to the other two, shot within a few minutes of each other. There's much more of a purple/blue tint in the others, which seems artificial to me and this one seems more neutrally coloured (see both rock and sky). -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the Color: I am currently switching from Lightroom 6 to Capture One as Adobe killed the stand alone License and I am not willing to rent my photo database software (but that is a discussion we should not get into here). This picture was the first picture I developed, still using Lightroom while the other two have been developed in Capture One which seems to have a slightly warmer, more magenta white balance as a default. As I didn't have the intention to have the two pictures side by side I never compared the two during development. Hence: I can match the color balance if needed, but I am hesitated to blow up the number of alts even more... -C-M (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The first photo's EXIF seems to suggest it has been through both Lightroom and Capture One. Based on the colours, I'd say there's a problem with your Capture One setup. It really doesn't look natural to me. I see in Lightroom you use the "Adobe Standard" profile, which tends to be neutral if boring vs the "Camera standard" which emulates your camera brand's JPGs. I don't know if Capture One has an equivalent. Ideally I think you want your raw software to be neutral and any deviation from that to be a deliberate choice. -- Colin (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Colin, I imported the whole Lightroom database into Capture One which took over the exposure adjustment, crops as well as my keywords and ratings, hence Lightroom being mentioned as "History Software Agent" in the EXIF data. Capture One applied the Nikon D500 Profile which indeed has a different tone compared to the Adobe Standard. When I select "Adobe DNG File Neutral" I get a similar color to the one of Lightroom. --C-M (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It may be sharper and all but frankly, I find all those trees blocking the veiw of the mountain a bit opressing, like you were looking up at all that glory from a pit down in a dark forest. --cart-Talk 09:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Alt 3Edit

 

  •   Support This is the best of the 3. --Yann (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose Not as blurred as the first one, but not as sharp as the second and concerned the purple/blue tint is not as faithful as #2. -- Colin (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support This one could work too. --cart-Talk 09:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support If I had to pick one it would be this one. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Yosemite Tunnel View Fall.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2017 at 22:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Cliche picture and viewpoint, but I think my light was better than most of the other pictures from tunnel view. Also, the clouds around El Capitan are quite nice, even so Half Dome is unfortunately not visible. Created by C-M - uploaded by C-M - nominated by C-M -- C-M (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- C-M (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

*  Support excellent autumnal mood! I prefer the alt --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I don't know if we have an existing FP of this tourist viewpoint. I see User:Diliff has uploaded five photos of this scene in various light: File:Tunnel View, Yosemite Valley, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg, for example. I think the angle of the light highlights the rocks better in Diliff's and the trees are better lit. It is also sharper. However the autumn colours are nice here, though most of the trees are in shadow, which is a shame as they might be amazing if sunlit. -- Colin (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

AltEdit

 

  •   Comment Sunlit may be problematic in autumn as the valleys orientation is west-east, it may be possible in summer when the sun is higher to clear the mountain - different colors however. Before I took this picture the sun was shining through clouds and only came low enough & western enough to cast the ray of light on the very left side of the valley. I uploaded an alternative version which I took a bit earlier - that one does not have the ray of light and hence had a lower dynamic range resulting in a brighter view on the trees. --C-M (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm enjoying the trees more in this one. A spot of sunlight (as in the first) can be great, but I think it has to light up the subject, rather just an arbitrary patch of hill off to the left. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support much better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin. HalfGig talk 22:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This is a nice image, of course but nowadays it's a too common scene, we've seen this view too many times. And when I think that the image is taken from here, all the magic is gone. The picture looks a bit oversharpened, BTW. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Asclepeion Epidaurus (3).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2017 at 09:30:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Greece
  •   Info Heavy rain clouds over the ancient site at Epidaurus. The only editing done is perspective; the clouds are as dark as they were in reality. The ruins of the ancient temple to Asclepius stands in a prominent position in the sanctuary. All by User:Peulle. -- Peulle (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There's what looks to me like a fairly prominent dusk spot in a dark part of the cloud; let me know if you need for me to try to mark the spot. Otherwise, I like this photo as a "landscape with ruins" that reminds me of 18th-century paintings. Are you defining your photo as "landscape with ruins and dark clouds"? I think defining it that way, rather than as a view of just the ruins, just might make the difference between approval and failure for this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  Done Thanks for spotting the dust. :) And yes, this is definitely not just a photo of the ruins; the reason I felt it might deserve the FP badge is because of the light created by the sun behind those heavy clouds. Should I specify this in the image description too, or is it sufficient to say it in this nomination?--Peulle (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Information about the photo and the scene goes on the file's page. Information about the FPC nomination and arguments pro or con, goes only on the nomination page. I don't think someone using a Wikipedia or this image data bank will be interested in reading about why a photo should be featured. --cart-Talk 19:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed zones and composition --The Photographer 16:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Support - I don't feel strongly about this photo, but I think we should accept Peulle's statement that the clouds (and presumably the rest of the picture) is as dark as it actually was. I like the light, shadow and ruins in the picture. Colin might say that I'm being too influenced by this reminding me of good paintings with similar subject matter, and if he did say that, he might be right, so I'm hedging a little by only mildly supporting, though of course I'm aware that regardless of how strong or weak my vote is, it counts just as much (or as little). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dark clouds and sunlight can be a good combination but overall this is a bit underwhelming. The actual monument is really not very much at all (see this angle). The scene reminds me a bit of File:Tourists posing at the National Monument of Scotland.jpg, and even that joke of a monument is more complete than this. The tourists, scrap metal poles and orange and blue distractions (car? junk?). Overall the image is really soft, so either there's a focus error and/or the use of f/16 on a crop sensor with that superzoom lens is just too much diffraction softening. Ikan, yes the problem about being reminded about better famous artwork, is it reminds me the famous artwork is better. While echoing a famous motif is fine, one's execution of it really has to stand alone, rather than relying on a memory of something else. -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Your point of view is logical. I'll consider whether to change my vote to neutral. But in partial argument (though, again, I don't feel strongly about this), I don't think this has to be as good as the best of the "landscape with ruins" paintings to be a viable FP. It doesn't look like this will pass at FPC, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I only say it should "stand alone" as a great image, not that it is as good as or better than some classic artwork. I don't find a "reminds me of a great work" to be a convincing reason to support an image. -- Colin (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Sure. Something can remind you of a great work while being utter schlock. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: if that's your way of saying that this particular image is poor, I'd call that the best hidden insult ever. :D --Peulle (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
No, that's a general statement. If I thought this image was poor, I wouldn't have voted for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. It seems to have trouble deciding what it wants to be. Maybe this would work with sunlight on the ruin and/or less background. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Plectranthus verticillatus in a ceramic pot.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 20:57:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Lamiaceae
  •   Info I'm nominating this mostly because I think this is soothing to watch, but also because we don't see many plants photographed this way here at FPC. It may not be to everyone's taste though -- cart-Talk 20:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 20:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like this very much. --Yann (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but what's happening with the lighting at the top? It looks like it's vignetted in reverse, and only for that edge -- Thennicke (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The background was not entirely even and also tilting backwards a bit, I smoothed it out a little. It's now fixed on a better monitor. --cart-Talk 08:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Looks better now -- Thennicke (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I normally just ignore this type of nomination, but the composition and technical quality are just too poor. Seriously - and OBJECTIVELY - how can this be supported for FP? Charles (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Are you looking at the same picture? The quality is good, and the composition is just perfect. Yann (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Like I said in the nomination: "It may not be to everyone's taste". I'm simply trying something we don't see very often here. If most voters find it appalling, it will be voted out and I won't try anything like it again. --cart-Talk 09:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Charles, your comment comes across as sarcastic and aggressive. I'm sure it wasn't meant that way but perhaps the choice of words could be kinder/more constructive -- Thennicke (talk) 12:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles. --Karelj (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While it's certainly not the worst image I've seen, the level of detail isn't quite what I'd call "one of the best images on Commons". Nice light, though.--Peulle (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really nice shot with a pleasant composition. Worth to be featured. --Selbymay (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per cart's nomination statement. Frankly, this is how most people experience their plants. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For Charles --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

File:The flowers in her hair by John George Brown (95504819).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 15:02:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kissingen Brunnenhaus 0417RM0697.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 13:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Quality_images/Subject/Architecture/Interior
  •   Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support though I'm not really sure what I'm seeing here, with all the brass pipes, etc and what looks like a pool with no water. -- Colin (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment At the water taps the spa guests can tap into the "delicious" healing water in cups brought along. In the corner of the basin the spring is bordered. I can't say which function the pelvis has exactly.--Ermell (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It might not be the Pump Room in Bath, but I can surely imagine some of Jane Austen's characters socializing here, taking the waters. Great atmosphere. --cart-Talk 20:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose f/3.5 on panorama ist kein gut, schlecht ja. Fence near you is out of some hyperfocal distance, other parts loose some sharpnes. Unless you do stack job, which isnt visible. Other part, i am missing water inside the pool, and some more description about Rakoczy which name is on the stone. That was count or more revolutioner from Hungary. --Mile (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The water in places like this room is for drinking, not swimming or bathing in. The blue representation of water in the lower area is probably just ornamental and not a pool. --cart-Talk 17:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment @PetarM: f 3.5 is surely not optimal and with a tripod I would have chosen a different aperture. For information about the place and the namesake of the source I recommend Wikipedia. Incidentally, some sharpness is always lost when correcting the perspective, but this is nothing new. Thanks for taking the time to evaluate the picture.--Ermell (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect, but good enough for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agree with Daniel Case. PumpkinSky talk 14:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Stift Ossiach Kirche Flügelaltar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2017 at 10:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @The Photographer: I am not sure that I got your point correctly, but I have reduced brightness in the top right corner to get it less prominent --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Old Royal Naval College 2017-08-06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 21:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Photographer, I'll see if I can eliminate them tomorrow. Is it just the two cyclists? If I can't remove them, I think they are far enough apart to be not easy to spot except to us eagle-eyed reviewers. -- Colin (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The Photographer, I have removed the repeated cyclists. Also managed to improve the Union Jack in the centre of the picture. -- Colin (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for fix it, There are another severals pixels problem without a real importance. Btw, you are the only one eagle-eyed reviewer. --The Photographer 23:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks good to me. I don't notice a problem with people, but I'm sure it'll be dealt with. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It would be much prettier if the building was in the sun, but this still passes the bar IMO -- Thennicke (talk) 03:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Thennicke agree, however the buildings face north so are never in full sun. You end up with an image like this or this where a portion is in deep shadow. A photo taken from the hill like this would get the full sun from the other side. Btw, here are the buildings from the air -- it is a much more three-dimensional scene than it appears. -- Colin (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the context. I think I'd still prefer the early morning light with the diagonal shadows - the soft yellow glow is oh-so-pretty, and the asymmetrical lighting doesn't faze me. And with buildings such as these you always have the option of getting up early and doing what Julian did in this image, where the sun is rising from behind the building but the facades are still getting plenty of reflected light from the bright sky. I do think that this image has about the worst lighting possible for a building - no offence intended there at all - it is well processed though, and I judge on execution more than on subject/lighting, so still FP to me -- Thennicke (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
        • Thennicke agree, and if this was an ordinary building at ordinary resolution, then just a QI -- there's nothing magical about the light here. At least it lights evenly for educational purpose, rather than having some of the building hidden in shadow. I do think that strong side light would probably provoke a lot of opposes with complaints that too much of the building was in shadow, unless one artificially pulled up the shadows strongly. The light in Julian's photo is very nice. -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Sorry for elaborating on this point but another thought I had - you could also do such an image on an overcast day, such as in this image. Then you avoid this ugly dynamic range with the bright sky in the background and the dark stuff in the foreground, because everything is evenly-lit and uniform. I think we tend to forget that overcast days can actually produce really great architectural (and other) images, and that a white sky is not always a problem - sometimes that's the way it actually looks -- Thennicke (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Thennicke, no problem. It is good to think about how to improve picture-taking. Looking at our FP exterior architecture photos, of the many dozens of images, I can count the ones taken on overcast days on one hand. That's quite an exceptional example there, where the unusual geometric shape suits the soft lighting, and the exterior is not grey stone, but dark glossy surfaces that work well against a plain sky. Overcast sky is not unusual in the UK and can be really bright to the point of needing HDR to avoid it simply blowing to white, or really dark where one needs to artificially raise the exposure or else the image looks too dull to be enjoyable. You won't avoid "bright sky; dark foreground" unless the sky is actually not evenly lit. For example, dark rainclouds behind the subject and clear sun low behind the photographer always generates a dramatic image. People just don't tend to like white or light-grey skies, and I think if this was a plain grey sky, it would be opposed for it. Leaving the sky aside here, the actual subject is lit via clouds, as it would on an overcast day, so is softly lit, just nothing exciting. That has the benefit of not needing any careful exposure handling, lifted shadows or reduced highlights. This is "the way it actually looks", but that's not really an argument for generating the "wow" for FP vs the thousands of QIs taken on overcast days. Btw, "Capturing Light" by Michael Freeman is a great book on different sorts of light. -- Colin (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
How general composition light rule the background need have a different contrast level than the foreground, however, I understand the Thennicke comment, the sky look   Overexposed, maybe you could fix it using lightroom. --The Photographer 18:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Prismo345 (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Shame about the scaffolding around Bellot Memorial. -1 point for you making it infinitely harder for me to ever get a FP of this very scene! :D -- KTC (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wish I'd been able to get this view the day I was there ... Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good job. --Selbymay (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 19:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A grateful motif presented on a technically high level and very detailed. But I find the colors and light situation too weak for a FP. Sorry. --Milseburg (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment After reviewing it again, I think it was a little too bright. I have slightly adjusted the global exposure/shadows. Think the sky/clouds are better like this. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes the clouds seemed blown - I was going to mention that -- Thennicke (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Holma Boat Club by the light of the moon.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 14:20:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Sweden
  •   Info Holma Boat Club at Gullmarn fjord. This part of the fjord consists mostly of nature reserves, so there are no street lights and very few houses in the area. The scene is only lit by the moon, at the time approaching full at 97.2%. Looking in the opposite direction, you got this. All by me, -- cart-Talk 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 14:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support You've put the poor little camera to its limits but it's a nice image. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Basotxerri. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality isn't good,right part isn't sharp. More composition isn't very nice for me....and where is the moon? --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The moon works the same way as the sun, you don't need to include it in a photo to see the things it is shining on, ;) --cart-Talk 19:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too dark (illumination of the building is missing for an appropriate image). --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 22:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Good composition and focus but I think it's too dark. HalfGig talk 23:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Support I change my vote per Cart's comment below. I get it now. HalfGig talk 22:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just a small note about the darkness in the photo, since folks have commented on it. The whole idea here was to make a photo, showing the darkness you get with just the moon for light. There aren't many good photos here made that way. Of course I could crank up the exposure and get a nice photo in almost "normal" light and colors, but that would be missing the point. If I had just wanted a photo of the boat club to picture the different buildings there, I would have taken it in daylight. This is to show what moonlight photography can look like. A bit "outside the box" per the way I usually work. ;)--cart-Talk 00:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart's remarks above. Lovely moonlit scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:23, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Kapelle Stadtfriedhof Göttingen 2017 03.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 07:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Chapel on the historic city cemetery in Göttingen, Germany. C/u/n by me. — Julian H. 07:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. — Julian H. 07:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The quality of the image is great. The enveloping of the trees is what you have tried to compose but for some reason I feel that the right tree is blocking the building view and the picture does not seem to qualify for a FP candidate. Sorry!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 23:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I prefer the alternative shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Up to thirds, all good. Wouldnt go alternative. --Mile (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good composition; excellent image -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this version of the motif because it highlights the character's park cemetery better.--Ermell (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in favor of the alternative, which you might want to publicize by pinging everyone who's voted here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: The original has gained all support votes since the alternative was posted, so I guess it is the more popular choice. — Julian H. 20:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Alternative CompositionEdit

 

  •   Info An unobstructed view from a position somewhat closer to the building. — Julian H. 06:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I prefer this version, because the view of the chapel is essentially unobstructed and the trees delightfully embrace it on both sides. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The trees help to frame the building, an effect which is lost here. -- King of ♠ 02:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    I don't get what you're seeing. They frame the building on each side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    I like that in the first photo, the base of the trees slope up towards the base of the building, which is lacking in the second photo. But to be fair, I wouldn't have opposed this image if only this version were nominated, so striking my oppose. -- King of ♠ 04:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    I think it's legitimate to oppose a featurable photo in favor of the version you prefer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: Why? That would mean that two featureable versions could end up with 50 % opposes each, even though everyone agrees that they are both featurable. You should only oppose a candidate if you deem it not featurable. — Julian H. 05:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course, I think that everyone should be careful to avoid that situation and oppose an otherwise featurable photo only if it's clear that the result would be only to help the other version win. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 17:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
The chosen alternative is: File:Kapelle Stadtfriedhof Göttingen 2017 03.jpg

File:Emirates Airbus A380-861 A6-EER MUC 2015 04.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2017 at 06:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 17:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Airliners

File:Gran Palacio del Kremlin, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 28-29 HDR.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2017 at 21:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Night view of the Grand Kremlin Palace, Moscow, Russia. It was built from 1837 to 1849 on the site of the estate of the Grand Princes, which had been established in the 14th century on Borovitsky Hill. The palace, 125 metres (410 ft) long and 47 metres (154 ft) tall, was formerly the tsar's Moscow residence. All by me, Poco2 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful. There's a little color noise, but I don't know if there's any reason to edit such a large file. Not necessary for my vote, at any rate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 02:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support :-) --XRay talk 06:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Gorgeous Picture. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice! --cart-Talk 09:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

*  Support --Aczap (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." This vote was your 26th edit. Welcome back later when you have made more edits. :-) --cart-Talk 13:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The image is tilt --The Photographer 23:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)   Support Well done, it's ok now --The Photographer 20:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    True, The Photographer, there was a tilt of 0,1 degrees. I've uploaded a new version --Poco2 18:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 07:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I dont like tonality here. What happaned to normal picture, does it have to be HDR. I think it should look more like this one. Fasade of church is very white. Pink color is everywhere. Its disturbing. --Mile (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
    Your version looks too bluish (cold) to me. Among us, you don't really need any comments to your oppose votes for my noms, there's a pattern. Poco2 20:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Poco_a_poco I found very useful the oppose comments (maybe some exceptions like "not wow", for example), however, comment a oppose vote is a requirement accepted for everyone who nominates pictures here. I really find the oppose votes comments more enriching than the positive ones because these comments help to improve the photographers quality and we are only able to improve thanks to constructive criticism. I particularly do not see anything wrong with the Mile comment and If you do not agree, ignore his comment but do not ask people to break the rules. --The Photographer 20:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 17:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture


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:Coriander Seeds.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 20:02:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Anfiteatro de Pula, Croacia, 2017-04-17, DD 13-18 HDR PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 18:03:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info View during the blue hour of the exterior of the Pula Arena, an amphitheatre located in Pula, Croatia. This Roman edifice was constructed between 27 BC and 68 AD and is among the largest surviving Roman arenas in the world. At the same time, is the best preserved ancient monument in Croatia and the only remaining amphitheater having all four side towers with all three Roman architectural orders entirely preserved. Poco2 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 18:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good job, congrats. --Selbymay (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Gentiana acaulis (stemless gentian).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 17:38:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:All Saints Orthodox church in Suwałki, Poland 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2017 at 16:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Börnste, Feld -- 2017 -- 3171.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 20:23:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Gondorf, der Oberburg Dm foto8 2017-06-01 12.53.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 20:00:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Galgenwaard at night matchday.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 16:24:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Livioandronico2013: This is a football stadium at night during a football match. WikiZeven (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basotxerri --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Several quality issues; perspective, chromatic aberrations, general lack of sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Abandon building insurgentes niza mexico.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 15:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing of interesting for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, and I would have nominated this photo, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Livio --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I guess supporters like the black and yellow pattern of the building seen in front view but it's not enough to create a FP. I don't find the picture attractive, I maybe would appreciate better a wider view, or a more creative vision. --Selbymay (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Livio this time. --Laitche (talk) 11:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting, but I don't really see a wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Schloss Augustusburg, Southern Facade, November 2017 -02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 11:48:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Cindy's Produce apples LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 03:51:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Food
  • 8 varieties of apples at Cindy's Produce, and a pumpkin. Peace. -- PumpkinSky talk 03:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 03:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Your photo is so inspiring, that I had to eat an apple right now. "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." And in the afternoon I will prepare myself a delicious pumpkin soup. ;-) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Glad you were inspired to eat healthy food! I LOVE anything made with pumpkin (no surprise given my username): pie, bread, muffins, soup, Thai curry, desserts, ice cream, donuts, etc. PumpkinSky talk 04:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment Aren`t pumpkins a devine present of Our Lord to us humans? -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support - A pleasant spread and composition. Doesn't awe me, but I think it's a good and pleasant enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. An iconic picture of American life, at least to us foreigners. ;) I would like it even more if you could perhaps remove that blurry orange thing top center, it's a bit distracting. This is the kind of good everyday life photos we need more of here. --cart-Talk 12:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment @W.carter: I had to both smile and chuckle. I'm glad you liked it so much and think it's iconic, but I'd never thought of it as iconic; I guess because I see this stuff all the time. The content aware fill worked great. It's better than cloning. I've only used CAF a few times before. I don't use PS a lot but when I need it, it's great. PumpkinSky talk 12:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing the picture. It's "stuff we see all the time" that needs to be documented too, although such subjects are always hardest to get "wow-y" photos of. That shouldn't deter us, it's worth all the 'opposes' when you finally get one right. :) --cart-Talk 12:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 14:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --The hook that hangs like a sausage on the right side of the picture spoils the composition.--Ermell (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Ermell, just FYI, things hanging from posts, walls, and the ceiling are quite common in these sorts of places, at least on this side of the pond. IMHO the hook gives this a more rural character, which is what this is, a rural produce stand. PumpkinSky talk 17:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment You mean it's part of the composition? For me, it looks like it accidentally came into the picture. The hook doesn't make sense because it could be a sausage as well.--Ermell (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI, for FP i miss more apples here, they make low % of pic. --Mile (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Tallmon 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 03:41:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
  •   Info created + uploaded by Pixpep - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 03:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 03:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support stunning PumpkinSky talk 03:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support There are things I don't like and I wish the wire was not there but I can't stop from agreeing this should be supported. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per PumpkinSky. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I wish I saw the tops of more trees, but the light is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The beauty of Nature!!! Gorgeous snap. --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support YESSSSS! --Basotxerri (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Big WOW! --Code (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support !! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Of course! When I first saw this at the Swedish WLE, I hesitated to nominate it here because of some small tech shortcomings, so I'm very glad to see that people here can now look beyond such things and see only the beauty of the photo. --cart-Talk 12:14, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- HalfGig talk 14:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ---Ermell (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support All said, Poco2 17:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I did a reverse image search and found a whole lot of hits from before it was uploaded here. Thankfully (sort of), that looks to be because the uploader had it on his Flickr account since 2015. It's "all rights reserved" there, however, so @Pixpep: please go through COM:OTRS to make it "official" that you are the owner of the copyright. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
      Comment Thanks for the find. Pixpep's only activity was uploading some images to WLE, so it's rather unlikely that they reply here; however, maybe, someone of our colleagues who are active on Flickr too (e.g. Code, Poco a poco) could contact Peter Nilsson there to make sure it's the same person and the CC license on Commons is approved. --A.Savin 17:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    I've also left a message for Axel Pettersson (WMSE), who tagged the image with WLE, just in case it was perhaps through some outreach that the user uploaded these files (or some other circumstance that could allow for off-wiki contact/knowledge). — Rhododendrites talk |  18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    @A.Savin: I left a comment on Flickr. --Code (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 06:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice - DerFussi 14:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Manhattan Executive Apartments from Glebe Park, Canberra ACT.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 00:23:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • What's wrong with the lighting? -- Thennicke (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is no wow factor and the picture looks like just another building. Sorry!!! --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:India - Kolkata electricity meters - 3832.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2017 at 00:16:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Prismo345: Why's that? Your oppose is fine, but you have to provide a reason. Do you not like the lack of contrast, or what? -- Thennicke (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I change my mind, and I support it, okay? :)   | Prismo (talk. | contr.) 16:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Too cluttered, hard for the eye to find a focal point. HalfGig talk 03:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great image! --Yann (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a "God bless this mess and be thankful that it works" kind of image. Great capture. --cart-Talk 12:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Prismo345 (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Although the sharpness on the left hand side is diminishing, the picture has a strong expressiveness and charm. The apparent disorder is in its own way somehow orderly.--Ermell (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great image especially the expression of the boy and his pose. The background also reveals the complex connections :) --Sanjay Acharya (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Laitche (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Garaio - Embalse de Ullíbarri-Gamboa - Playa 08.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 19:16:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Sorry, I have no idea but there were really lots of them. Also I'm not sure if these are stationary (which I don't think) or if they are on its way from Northern Europe to Africa. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I've just had a look to another telephoto shot and it makes me think that the waterfowls are coots. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ...which you can see on KoH's Golden Gate Park image, too... --Basotxerri (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The only reason I haven't supported this is because of that cut waterline/beach curve on the right side. You don't happen to have a version that includes the whole curve (and maybe something more on the left side as balance) somewhere in your archives? --cart-Talk 20:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I knew that someone would find that flaw. The problem is that I'm rather a Lightroomer rather than a Photoshopper and I won't be able to fix it, sorry. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support although cart has a point. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Garaio - Embalse de Ullíbarri-Gamboa - Playa 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 19:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, yesterday I was lucky with the weather. Almost raining and grey all day, and then the sun came out for about half an hour and I was in the right place at the right time. Good light and dramatic clouds. Both images have been taken from almost the same point, one towards the lake, the other towards the parking lots. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support what a sky! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great scene and rich colors. --cart-Talk 12:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment If you would lean down, made path wider so would be more photogenical. Shot is interesting for comparing: in pano you feel joy, nature while in tight portrait its more screenshot for a horror movie. --Mile (talk) 09:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm wondering what me made to shoot the image this way. I'm sure I tried to get down a bit but something seemed better in this composition. But indeed, this is an interesting subject for varying. Landscape, portrait, vanishing point in the centre or rule of thirds... --Basotxerri (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Bell in Japanese Garden NBG 100 crop LR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 15:11:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Japanese Bell in the Japanese Garden at Norfolk Botanical Garden. All by me. Peace. -- PumpkinSky talk 15:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 15:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment FYI, the cache seems to have trouble. Please ensure you're looking at the latest version. Peace. PumpkinSky talk 00:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting motive, well balanced and amazing colors, especially the rusty brown bell. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Has an enchanting Zen-like ambiance. HalfGig talk 03:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per HalfGig. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergtocht van Sapün (1600 meter) via Medergen (2000 meter) naar brug over Sapüner bach (1400 meter) 016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 06:07:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Santorin (GR), Fira, Drei Glocken von Fira -- 2017 -- 2589.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 05:09:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Greece
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 05:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 05:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better than the previous nom. --Yann (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very strange mix of different element and one too many. Either the dome or the cliffs should go. I get the impression of a collage rather than a photo. Sorry. --cart-Talk 11:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. Either, but not both. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Colors (maybe low contrast), cross is to much on the corner. --Mile (talk) 09:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Makhtesh Ramon (50785).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2017 at 01:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by me — Rhododendrites talk |  01:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Makhtesh Ramon in Israel's Negev Desert, viewed from the top of Mount Gvanim. Nominating because I like the range of geological features (forms, colors), characteristic of the place. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral. Very beautiful, but quality is not particularly high given the moderate resolution, especially on the sides. -- King of ♠ 02:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I could not bring a tripod and it was extremely windy up there (the "see how far you can lean forward without falling", hard to hear the person next to you sort of windy). I get what you're saying, though, and if I had a higher-end camera or took it from closer to the ground (or otherwise in less windy conditions), then the shot would likely have been better. Maybe if I go back someday. :) I'm happy with the result, though, and feel like it's still a good candidate for FP (we'll see, I suppose). — Rhododendrites talk |  05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. IMO, nothing really wrong with the quality --A.Savin 14:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Alexander. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support HalfGig talk 03:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak Support Weak 7 --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Low quality. --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 08:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Catedral de María Reina del Mundo, Montreal, Canadá, 2017-08-12, DD 46-48 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 Nov 2017 at 20:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.