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:Regietów Wyżny (Рeґєтiв) - dzwonnica 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Image:Uglich church of Dimitry2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 15:00:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2015 Winobluszcz trójklapowy 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 12:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:08A112 in Chasha Depot.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 04:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:The Back Bay of Newport Beach CA by D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 21:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Flown, Photographed, Uploaded & Nominated by -- WPPilot (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Don (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very nice composition. Decreasing the mild noise would be good but isn't essential. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark foreground. -- -donald- (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Prague 07-2016 Wenceslas Square img3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 20:41:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Legion of Honor at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 17:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We have a lot of building FPs but I don't think this is quite there in among our finest. It isn't really that sharp, and not exceptionally high resolution that I'm willing to forgive. The blue-hour sky could do we being a little lighter/earlier. The lake occupies too much of the frame, imo, and isn't really a mirror reflection worth keeping. The image is slightly asymmetrical, though that's not bad enough to be an oppose reason. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. lNeverCry 20:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness could indeed be a bit better. I do like the colors though, I also don't mind the rather late blue hour lighting. The composition is absolutely fine with me. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Зебрњак, Старо Нагоричане 23.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 14:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wire-tailed swallowEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 12:03:20 (UTC)

  • I had talked about it to him. It is from some tree parts. It is appreciated if someone having good processing skills help to remove it. Jee 12:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Manojiritty and Jee I removed the noise, if you think that it's not ok, simply revert me. Thanks --The Photographer 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Both images made my day this morning. --smial 13:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Amazing image, however, background noise, chromatic aberration and bird aura, different light background for the images --The Photographer 18:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)   Support --The Photographer 22:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support For a photo of a bird in flight / docking, at 420mm, and at around 10MP, this has good sharpness and is an excellent catch. I can forgive the slightly noisy background from ISO 1600 which really shouldn't concern us at 10MP wildlife photo, and would rather that than crude smoothing that risks losing detail round the birds. Shame the shutter speed changed between photos, but strangely the one with the longer exposure is darker. Were they processed the same? If the raw file is available then I can have a go, but am reluctant to process the JPG any further. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Colin. He is away; will share the raw files after two days. Jee 04:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Plenty of wow-factor for me, and if Colin is good with the technical aspects, I can't see any reason not to support this impressive pair of images (and birds). lNeverCry 20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The lighting is suboptimal, but the huge wow factor is more than enough to compensate. -- King of ♠ 01:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ! -- KTC (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Colin and King. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:1 tianzishan wulingyuan zhangjiajie 2012.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 09:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lacking a geocode but otherwise... -- Thennicke (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 09:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Thennicke. Great light, fine composition, impressive resolution and fantastic scenery! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --Lucasbosch 12:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A little bit of posterisation at the top left but overall fine. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like something from Lord of the Rings! lNeverCry 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It's a gorgeous scenery and normally a no brainer support... but it looks quite tilted to the right - Benh (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, Thennicke, you said we should have more China FPs, and then you found this ... wow! Can't find a more Chinese landscape than this. I hope I get to go back there again, and when I do I want to see this place. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:De zon probeert door de mist te breken. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 06:00:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info The sun tries to break through the fog. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. created all by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 07:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the combination of the traditional "landscape-in-fog-mood" and the double sun; it gives an almost surreal expression. --Pugilist (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Best here is you dont see the horizon. Love winter colors. --Mile (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I had this in my list of possible nominees, too. Great photo, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
  •   Support Jee 12:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support "I look around / Leaves are brown, now / And the sky is a hazy shade of winter". I have taking a few pictures trying to capture that concept; none of them have come anywhere near this one. Daniel Case (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Paris-7957a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 21:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by idobi - uploaded by idobi - nominated by Idobi -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning. I love the way the moon appears. Quality could be better especially on the right side but sufficient for FP. -- King of ♠ 23:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose great composition, vivid colors, excellent mood - if only image quality were better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like composition, perfect moon-clouds situation. Its not so sharp, but saw camera is not the latest model.--Mile (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It either is or is not an FP, based on the results, regardless of what equipment is used. And in this case, I think it's too noisy and unsharp to be one of the greatest night cityscape pictures, although the composition is beautiful. I would welcome any efforts by idobi to address these issues, because I'd love to be able to support this picture, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I find it a beautiful picture, but the quality is not great.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Famberhorst. Even given that it was a long exposure, we've seen that these images can be less noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Gedore No. 7 combination wrenches 6–19 mm.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 17:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
  •   Info Gedore No. 7 combination wrenches set from 6 to 19 mm. This is a shift panorama using the Canon TS-E 90 mm because my acrylic plate wasn't large enough for the whole set, additionally it's a focus stack of 5 to 6 images. Post processing to remove dust and make the background pure black.
    Created by Lucasbosch -- uploaded by Lucasbosch -- nominated by Lucasbosch -- LB 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LB 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really a good job --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 23:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • LB Did you check "landscape" version ? --Mile (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@PetarM: What makes you ask? Could be that I missed to set it appropriately, but there seems to be no place to check that as far as I can see. What would happen if it is set wrong? --Lucasbosch 12:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Lucasbosch Nothing is wrong with the set. Try to rotate it for 90 degress. It works better. --Mile (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@PetarM: For my taste it looks fine the way it is and it is more space saving when being placed on the right side of articles. Also, the majority of the text on the wrenches is oriented this way, so it's easier to read. --Lucasbosch 14:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Look forward to many more contributions from you. - Benh (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    +1 lNeverCry 20:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lez River, Saint-Clément-de-Rivière cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 09:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really a good job --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose All water reflections of trees are beautiful. I think this picture is missing something, like brilliant colors or an outstanding composition, that would set it apart from the others. -- King of ♠ 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info @Ikan Kekek, King of Hearts, Jkadavoor, Michielverbeek, Martin Falbisoner: @Livioandronico2013, INeverCry, Agnes Monkelbaan: I added more saturation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The colors are nice, but nothing quite worthy of FP in terms of the subject IMHO, it's not so interesting. I would have liked better separation of the trees in front and the background trees, to make it more visually appealing. --Lucasbosch 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the contrast beween the dark trees in the foreground and the brighter trees in the background --Llez (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Llez. I also have to say, particularly in response to King, that having looked at more than my share of water-reflection images while creating and populating those categories, this one did make me stop while scrolling through here. What to me works is that the trees sort of suggest a colonnade, and a slightly irregular one at that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Daniel Case, thanks for putting into words what I think a lot of us had probably noticed unconsciously. Christian Ferrer, the slight change in the new edit is fine with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good job Christian. Quite a nice natural abstract. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Berlin, Denkmal für die im Nationalsozialismus ermordeten Sinti und Roma -- 2016 -- 5594.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 07:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 07:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 07:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - That's a pretty striking picture, and of obvious socio-historical and educational value, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While it may represent an important memorial, I find the photograph itself lacking. Low overal contrast, distracting reflections of the trees, distracting floating leaves hanging on the side of the memorial. It looks like a snapshot to me. The context of how the whole puddle looks is also missing, IMHO this should have been included. --LB 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Looks like a shapshot". :-( Never seen snapshots like this. It was made with tripod and I'd choosen a long exposure to accentuate the trees. IMO the the cloudy day is good to show the memorial in autumn. --XRay talk 09:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @XRay: Good to know that you took care when making the photograph, and I respect your decision to render the trees sharply, but still, I find the composition lacking and it doesn't represent the memorial well enough for my taste. I would have liked to see the whole puddle and its decoration around it. As it is, you kind of included the edge of the puddle, but only a bit, and not enough to give someone a good idea of how the whole memorial looks when standing in front of it. --LB 15:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This must be from polar bear and the keeper ? I would put into description. --Mile (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I thought its about that polar bear and Zoo keeper in Germany. Both died i think. --Mile (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@PetarM: Mile, I know you're not a native German speaker, but neither am I and yet I can clearly tell from the filename that this is "Memorial to the Sinti and Roma victims of the Nazis". As such I can only assume that you were trying to make a joke, and honestly it's in poor taste given the real purpose of the memorial. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry Daniel Case, i havent saw word "victims". Joke...grow up. --Mile (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • This is description in English : Memorial to the Sinti and Roma in Berlin-Tiergarten (Dani Karavan, 2012), Berlin, Germany. --Mile (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@PetarM: "Ermordeten" means "murdered". I rather think that expressing disapproval of trivializing a crime against humanity like that is the grown-up thing to do ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It gets low readings on my wow-o-meter, sorry. I agree with the assessement of LB, acknowledging that it is not a snapshot. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 23:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose My complaints about Mile's sense of humor aside, the reflection ruins the simplicity of the memorial otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - I'm looking at photos in Category:Memorial to the Sinti and Roma in Berlin-Tiergarten, and what I notice is that this part of the memorial is in water, so every photo of it includes a reflection. How do those of you who think this photo doesn't properly reflect the "simplicity" of the memorial propose for people to photograph it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM DSLR lensEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 00:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
  •   Info My studio photographs of the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM DSLR lens. All were taken with a Canon 6D with Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM lens (lighting and flagging setup: Image:Two flash photographic studio for lenses.jpg). Settings: f/8, 1/180 s, ISO 100. 10–25 shots for each setup were focus stacked in Helicon Focus, then masked, dusted and retouched as necessary in Photoshop. Final and only sharpening by highpass filter 1px.
    Created by Lucasbosch – uploaded by Lucasbosch – nominated by Lucasbosch -- LB 00:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LB 00:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 02:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great macro work. Very consistent processing and lighting. I could imagine seeing these images on the-digital-picture.com or somewhere like that -- Thennicke (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is not the kind of subject that most interests me, but I'm super-impressed with this work! I love all the detail and the light. Really great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support "Great macro work" - LOL! -- King of ♠ 06:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great. This is really excellent. Congrats. --Code (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm very impressed! Great work. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As a straight educational product catalogue shot (vs advertising where the image has to have desirable appeal) this is as good as it gets, with even lighting and a totally clean subject. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I also thought I was on the-digital-picture.com for a short moment. Very nice. - Benh (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great work. --Gyrostat (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support So good I can practically smell the plastic. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice and very useful on this project. --Reguyla (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:MNBA aos 80 anos 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 22:11:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
  •   Info created by Tomaz Silva/Agência Brasil - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ~nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad crop, perspective, noisy. Looks like a snapshot, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Slaunger. lNeverCry 02:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Slaunger.--Cayambe (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Slaunger; perspective problems are obvious even at thumb size. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, its a nice image but it doesn't meet the minimum size limit technical criteria required for a featured picture. Reguyla (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:MNBA aos 80 anos 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 22:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
  •   Info created by Tomaz Silva/Agência Brasil - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ~nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, I miss a clear idea with the composition. Needs perspective correction, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Slaunger. lNeverCry 02:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Slaunger. --Cayambe (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, its a nice image but it doesn't meet the minimum size limit technical criteria required for a featured picture. Reguyla (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Berdorf (LU), Aesbachtal -- 2015 -- 4550.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Unsharp foreground on the left is slightly distracting to me and might be cropped out, but I don't know what that would do to the composition. And the composition is the main reason I support this picture. It's a kind of lovely miniature landscape, with the cobwebs between the plants accentuating their formal relationship in the picture frame. It's best viewed at full screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm too distracted by all the plants on the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case, a tighter crop would to accentuate the main subject would be nice.--Lucasbosch 14:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'll crop out a part of the bottom within the next days. --XRay talk 19:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case. Too many random plants that are in focus distract the viewer. -- King of ♠ 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others an no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed @Daniel Case, Lucasbosch, King of Hearts, Uoaei1: Crop is now improved. Hopefully it's better now. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Caye Caulker Belize aerial (20688990128).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by dronepicr on Flickr - uploaded by User:Dronepicr - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this is an outstanding drone picture. My only hesitation in nominating it is that I hope people don't vote against it because the angle of the photo makes the ground diagonal, instead of straight, but I nominate it, anyway, to see what you all think. P.S. I didn't see a category for drone or aerial pictures; if you know of a good subcategory to add to the "Category" line, please feel free to add it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support No, I find the ground fine; as long as the horizon is level, which it appears to be. Great find too! Really lots of wow, and for a drone pic image quality is ok, but could be better -- Thennicke (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I really should involve myself with Photo Challenge more, but I wish there was some "QI" barrier to the nominations or something - unfortunately some of the winners are shocking from a photographic perspective -- Thennicke (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's because the judges have to work with the submissions they get. When they get higher-quality submissions, the results improve. Quite a few FPs have been among the top 3 results in photo challenges over the years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just not enough wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You will have to rework the colors here, think blue is +, green is missing. Some saturation maybe. --Mile (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the colors and composition. -- King of ♠ 04:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, I struggle to decide what the subject is --Lucasbosch 14:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - No argument on "no wow", but to me, anyway, the subject seems obvious: the bright area smack dab in the center of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Talleitspitze, Ötztaler Alpen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 13:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sand sculpture - Puerto de Mogan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 09:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support refreshingly different --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice, something new here. Maybe a low level view could be more interesting with the sky on top --The Photographer 12:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    •   Info It was at a popular beach. In the background there was no sky, but hundreds of bathing people. --Llez (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You might try diorama here. --Mile (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very nice image. But IMO it is a non permanent art work and this is not FoP in Spain. --XRay talk 19:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support because it's very nice. --XRay talk 07:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support @XRay: In general, works that are designed to be naturally destroyed by the elements are considered permanent. -- King of ♠ 19:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
But what if that guy from the Charles Atlas ads comes across it on the beach and kicks it into dust? Would that make it temporary?   Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I do not fancy the angle too much, but won't oppose either as it is refreshing. As The Photographer suggest a photo taken from a lower level would have been more interesting. I realize it was a busy beach, but I think an interesting position would have been to get the camera to the ground level, put on a zoom or a macro lens and make a detail shot of some of the sand houses showing just the sand castle elements with no traces of the normal beach and background. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Composition is pretty good in my opinion, but I'm supporting this mainly for uniqueness, though of course the picture quality is high, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Clear depiction of a very interesting subject -- Thennicke (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this AOV here as it cover a lot of details which we will miss in a lower position of the camera. This looks like an areal view of a castle. The light is harsh; but I can understand as it is from a beach. Jee 04:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 13:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!)    19:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Moscow ParkKulturyR vestibule 04-2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 07:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
  •   Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love the colors and enjoy the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I just can't keep my eyes off the power lines. The left crop is also a little distracting. -- King of ♠ 09:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Power lines. Yann (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, per King of Hearts. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cables in foreground and lamppost to the left leans distractingly much. Main subject itself is quite nicely lit, but the overall composition does not convince me, sorry -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Very weak support I have faced this same dilemma so many times myself ... great angle but for the wires. And so many times I've sighed and put the camera down. So молодец for trying where I usually give up. And for doing your best to make them less distracting instead of cheating entirely and cloning them out. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Per the others, sorry -- Thennicke (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Orange hibiscus.jpgEdit

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

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - You might have moved the blue chairs (I think they are) away, but they arguably add interest to the background, and pro or con on the chairs, this is a great closeup of the flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The blue object/s aren't natural. I would've moved them. They distract from the flower. lNeverCry 03:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose, background is noisy and it seems a little underexposed to me. Nice color though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting background elements. Center of flower is not as crisply resolved as I would anticipate in a a flower FP, sorry. Colours are good though, and it is refreshing to see other topics than church interiors nominated by you. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks Slaunger, but unfortunately it is a rumor. I have [1] FP of paintings, statues, panoramas etc ... it is logical that something is more common as many people have more of FP of flowers, insects, or ... churches. Greetings.--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Livioandronico2013: Thanks for clarifying, that you are not a church interior only FP creator. It was the only type of FPs I recalled having seeen previously, but I did not double-check.-- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Natural nude tree.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 20:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Please tell us why you think this photo should be featured. I'd like to have your thoughts on that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I could tell you it is a study on texture and volume, or that the forms on these trees are interesting, or that I and some others have a dirty mind... ;) Please see #REDIRECT[[2]] and #REDIRECT[[3]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Reject. Charles (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, it was clear for me after a split second, why you nominated this, Tomas. Hahaha. Well spotted. A brilliantly illuminated trunk, nice texture and shape. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me. File:Enterolobium cyclocarpum 01.jpg has much greater visual impact. I would support that. lNeverCry 02:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I tried to explore some suitable categories. Jee 04:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, nothing featurable here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - So ultimately, I think this is a moderately funny joke, since it was explained to me, but the composition doesn't really add up for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Vista de Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 108-114 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 18:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info Panoramic view of Baku, capital of Azerbaijan. Poco2 18:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 18:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Maybe more sky than necessary, but there are lots of interesting things to look at in full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The stitching errors noted need to be fixed.   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    Daniel:   Done and thanks to Ivar for the notes Poco2 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment but why choose such a miserable day? Charles (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    Good question Charles, actually I ordered good weather for the phototour, but they didn't listen to me :) Poco2 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • perhaps you can go back and take the same photos when the Caspian Waterfront Development is complete... Charles (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And who guarantees good weather? :) Poco2 10:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles. The light is flat and unattractive. lNeverCry 03:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I think this is a very valid point. I still think it's featurable, because it's such a huge, sharp panorama with interesting things to see, and not every photo needs to be of a sunny day or some amazing cloud formations. But it is definitely a valid point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ivar, the last stitching issues you noted are now addressed, thank you Poco2 16:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a vertical straight near the right border. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    True, Christian,   fixed now Poco2 09:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine. I appreciate this view. Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Je-str: I just fixed the stitching error you noted Poco2 22:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Too much sky and not enough ground -- Thennicke (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Helfaut Generatrice 28 10 2011 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 16:46:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created & uploaded by Vassil - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I just read a bit of the history of this bunker, and it's quite interesting. However, this photo is too small for FP (and QI) and could be clearer, too. The absolute minimum size for FPC noms is 2 megapixels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Ikan Kekek, It's 3.6 megapixels. Tomer T (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Sorry for being careless. I still think it's pretty small for FP, though, and it would have to be a lot clearer to have a chance to wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Apart from the size, I'm not really wowed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not think the technical quality is quite on par given the modest imge size. Especially the kA and V-meters in the foreground. Interesting subject though. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 03:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Russian chapel at Fort Ross (2016).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 07:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Good shot of interesting stuff. I would decrease sky noise a bit, and put into description is it active or a museum. --Mile (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I slept on this photo, and my verdict is that it's beautiful. Decreasing the sky noise would be fine, but it's a very fine grain that doesn't bother me at all. I really like the texture of the wooden chapel and fences. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good image but the shadowed fence make it not outstanding. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - For what it's worth, I like the alternation of light and shadow and think it contributes to the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree. The main subject is literally in the "spotlight" this way. I'm not sure whether it would have resulted in a better outcome had I waited for afternoon sunlight to also shine on the palisades. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Delicate light and colours on the main subject and very balanced composition. I do not mind the fence in shadow. Sky could be selectively de-noised, but it is really only noticeable if you pixel peep. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The shade is not so prominent in a large view. Jee 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I would say edu. value as first here.--Mile (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nicely done -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support well composed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Heaven Shall Burn - Rock am Ring 2016 - Leonhard Kreissig - 25.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 00:53:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by LeoDE - uploaded by LeoDE - nominated by LeoDE -- LeoDE (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LeoDE (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The singer is in a strong pose, but the background is unattractive. This would've been better if he was at left in the frame and some of the audience took up the right of the frame. lNeverCry 01:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  Info Just for Information: Audience wasn't possible due to the huge pit. But thanks alot for your feedbak --LeoDE (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per INC. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very powerful concert foto. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Frank! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition, background lighting, sharpness. Charles (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is a good and expressive concert photo, and I like the background stage illumination. It is as if it pushes the singer towards the audience. The crop of the foot could have been better but oh well. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles + random compo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is for sure not one of the very best --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like this photo, but ultimately, Uoaei1's argument really cuts to the heart of the matter and carries the day for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Window detail De Bazel Vijzelstraat Amsterdam 2016-09-13-6627.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 22:05:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info De Bazel is a monumental building in Amsterdam named after the architect Karel de Bazel. It was completed in 1926 and stands as an example of Brick Expressionism. This nominated picture is a detail of the facade, including four windows, and shows how bricks are used as ornamentation in complicated patterns. Today, the building houses Amsterdam City Archives. Created, uploaded, nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Splendid! Daniel Case (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 07:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great picture. Love detailed images like this of architecture, and the blue contrasts well with the brick and stone. WClarke (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support and the seventh :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Worker in São Paulo city.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2017 at 12:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Obrigado caro Arion, por qué vc paro de nominar minhas fotos? --The Photographer 16:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@The Photographer: Olá meu parceiro, na verdade eu pausei minhas atividades no Commons, por motivos pessoais. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support The monochrome brings out the grittiness of his work, and the chaos of his space is nicely contrasted with the geometric orderliness of the surrounding facade. Another great bit of street photography. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great scenary. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 23:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The B&W adds a nice sentimental touch, but when I ask myself "Is this the best we have to offer?" I think it falls short. His pose and facial expressions are all rather ordinary. -- King of ♠ 00:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild   Oppose - If you had cropped this closer, I might want to feature it. But as it is, the door to the worker's right (viewer's left) distracts me too much, when what I'd really like to focus on is the scene in his workshop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose no wow + per King. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel Case. --LB 19:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Panorama of Auxerre.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 20:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Your note hasn't shown up yet. Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd also suggest a tighter crop (see my note - I couldn't find Miles' yet) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Hope now is there. --Mile (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - My problem with the photo as is is that I don't really like the right crop, which cuts through a boat (and also what seems to me to be a concession stand, but I care less about that). However, I'm not sure if either of the two suggested crops solve the problem for me. My main hesitation in terms of Martin's crop is that although it's neat, cropping out the tall tree might have an adverse effect on the form, making it unbalanced between right and left, plus I'd just miss seeing that tree and its reflection. Something similar to Mile's crop might be helpful, but I wouldn't suggest bisecting the reflection of the trees near the near right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Whilst this is well-processed and it's a lovely image, the right crop is too bad and I don't think this can be rescued in post. This kind of thing needs to be thought about in the field, unfortunately. Turning the camera a little to the right would have saved this. The reflections and processing are definitely impressive though. I hope my review is helpful. -- Thennicke (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition does not work for me, too much foreground water, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support now. Jee 03:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Gut feeling: Even with this crop, this is a good to very good picture but not one of the most outstanding on this site. No offense intended. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral An attractive picture (I love the autumn colours of the trees on the right), but it's a bit unbalanced with the left side "higher" than the right. I also find the NR (?) smears too many details away. - Benh (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2016 Minox C 8.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 17:53:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Komatsu bulldozer pushing coal in Power plant Ljubljana (winter 2017).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 07:44:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Other land vehicles
  •   Info Komatsu bulldozer pushing coal in Power plant Ljubljana (winter 2017). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Just like Kabellerger's shot of the train going across the bridge, the color pops against the natural winter monochrome behind it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This image is good, but I feel uneasy looking at it because you seem to have rotated it to make the bottoms of the tracks horizontal - really, what needs to be horizontal is the bucket, because that is what is in the center of the image - and at the moment the bucket is tilted heavily to the left. Which would be fine if the dozer was going uphill, but the composition does not contain clues to that, and therefore this is uneasy on my eyes. I also think this is slightly overprocessed - too much contrast. Good, simple composition though, and Daniel's comment about the colours is spot on. I'll definitely support if you fix the problems I've noted -- Thennicke (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thennicke Good, first, i couldnt say is bulldozer in normal position by nothing here seeing vehicle alone, but look i have some luck. See note, there is part of high building on right side, you can see vertical line is positioned good. This was one of quick images, nothing much to change, contrast same, but offset changed to my taste to -0.0124. Offset and crop. So, no rotating, this path goes some 10-12 % uphill. --Mile (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, now that you point it out I see it. However, a person looking at the thumbnail will not notice it, so that isn't good. And for that reason, I stand by my statements. -- Thennicke (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. No problem with the angles for me, and the distant buildings on the right confirm that no rotating has taken place. —Bruce1eetalk 17:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the contrast between the yellow dozer, the black coal and the white snow. Nice and creative idea. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - There is a lot of energy in the picture. Nice composition and I am not worried about the angles. --Pugilist (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:北京市民俗博物館·東岳廟·北京朝外大街·(二道門).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2017 at 03:52:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info The first gate of Beijing Dongyue Temple. The gate is located in Chaoyangmenwai Street, Beijing, China. And it is one of the MHCSPNL (Major Historical and Cultural Site Protected at the National Level) created by Legolas1024 - uploaded by Legolas1024 - nominated by Legolas1024 -- Legolas1024 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Legolas1024 03:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It's a good subject and you're using a good camera, but for these kinds of low buildings you're almost always best using a landscape orientation. The processing is not great either, but that just requires practice. Also, at 1/30th of a second, you'll struggle to get truly sharp images. One thing I do like about this image is that it's quite symmetrical, and it's great to see nominations from China - we don't get enough of them. If you'd like more feedback to improve your photography skills, have a look at commons:Photography critiques -- Thennicke (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Excellent composition, but I dislike the sky (and trees) enough to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Thennicke. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The symmetric view through the gate is good, but the light is dull, the sky burns the leaves of the trees and the portarit aspect ratio is not the adequate choise. Actually, a square crop may have been better. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jee 16:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Virmalised 18.03.15 (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 15:53:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created and uploaded by Kristian Pikner - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 22:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Quite beautiful, and the dark silhouettes of trees look quite realistic in terms of what a person would be likely to see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I added a noise reduction version, however, I reverted myself, if you think that this version is better you can set it on top. Nice image --The Photographer 13:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support For this kind of photograph: OK. Noise in the sky and minor CAs at some stars. --XRay talk 19:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 16:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   strong oppose absolutely oversaturated!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - How do you know these colors aren't real, as auroras don't all look the same everywhere they're viewed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:National Gallery from SW, Canberra Australia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2017 at 03:30:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done Changed the 16:9 to a 2:1 crop -- Thennicke (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Verde78 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good - can you replace image on Wikipedia article. Charles (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I was thinking this building just wasn't featurable from my point of view, but your edits to brighten and crop the photo have made a huge difference. It's funny how relatively small a change can make the difference between a decent photo and a really good one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan, who hits the nail on the head, like so many times before. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I'm not wowed and I don't get the wide support. It's just a good photo of a notable building. It's of course QI (though some remaining CA's at the left still there), but it was taken in plain midday light, so that the grass looks fade-out and the scenery rather boring. I also don't find the architecture particularly special. To get a wow photo of this, maybe a good idea to do it on Blue hour like on this photo (which itself is technically poor, but could maybe serve as a source of inspiration). --A.Savin 17:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @A.Savin: I'm still deciding what I think about this review, but in the meantime, thanks for providing it; it's making me think more about how important the subject or the lighting are for making "wow" in an image. I'd like to point out that a lot of your own architectural images are also taken in harsh midday light though -- Thennicke (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes; when on travel, there is very limited choice what to photograph at which time of day. But nominating a photo on FPC is quite another story. --A.Savin 10:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, I guess that makes sense - fair point. I guess there's a taste element to it, but I happen to love harsh light (reminds me of summer), and for this image in particular, chose it deliberately. Also to be consistent with other similar images. -- Thennicke (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Gran Mezquita de Isfahán, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 26.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 21:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support A little noisy in some places, but not the places that matter. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel. Strange, there shouldn't be any noise at ISO 200. Something that happened in post? Not a big deal anyway... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shadow-sun dont go together here, neither part of sky. This could be done when without sun, and would also cut sky out. --Mile (talk) 07:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent --The Photographer 13:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Distinct approval. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Mile. --Gnosis (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you interpret his objections, then? It sounded like he was trying to argue that a night photo that somehow excluded any sky but yet had the complete iwan would be better than this. None of that sounded possible, but then maybe you understand what he meant better than I did. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't underestand why Mile is not banned from FPC --The Photographer 11:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a separate question, though it might be related if his reasons for voting against photos by Poco make no sense. I don't know whether this time, they make no sense or whether it's just a language problem. Probably best to discuss this elsewhere, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Palácio das Indústrias (São Paulo city).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 20:53:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

BTW, 5 min after started to rain and rained for 3 hours. Beria and me will wait in the building, however, without being able to enter. --The Photographer 22:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  Done Thanks --The Photographer 12:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ok, the mood is special and dramatic enough Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Fünfseenblick.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 17:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very detailed for sure, but no wow for me: just a long strip of green with few features. -- King of ♠ 19:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm sufficiently wowed by all the little details --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak oppose Per KOH -- Thennicke (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info @King of Hearts:, @Thennicke: I added some more linked notes, to make clearer what interesting sights can be seen from here. Most of them also have articles in English. --Milseburg (talk) 14:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Much respect to you: This is a really well-done panorama, a fine photograph and very valuable. But what it doesn't do, relative to other panoramas, including some of yours, is wow me. That's basically covered by KoH above: There just isn't that much to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Hamadruas sp 05600.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2017 at 06:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
  •   Info created and uploaded by Vengolis - nominated by Christian Ferrer
  •   Support Great details, color and composition -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great pic. Excuse my language, but that is just a crazy-looking motherfucker right there! lNeverCry 07:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yikes! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I had this on my list of possible nominees, too. I think the spider is interesting-looking, not scary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me, this is not sharp enough (and we don't know the species). Charles (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I've to agree with Charles but still the subject does wow me Poco2 17:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not only per Charles (although I should add the color is very nice) but because the leaves unfortunately get in the way of appreciating the spider. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Verde78 (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Hope Vengolis will switch to RAW soon which will improve the results a lot. Jee 03:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jee 13:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida


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:Regietów Wyżny (Рeґєтiв) - dzwonnica 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Image:Uglich church of Dimitry2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 15:00:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2015 Winobluszcz trójklapowy 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 12:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:08A112 in Chasha Depot.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 04:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:The Back Bay of Newport Beach CA by D Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 21:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Flown, Photographed, Uploaded & Nominated by -- WPPilot (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Don (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very nice composition. Decreasing the mild noise would be good but isn't essential. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark foreground. -- -donald- (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Prague 07-2016 Wenceslas Square img3.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 20:41:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Legion of Honor at night.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 17:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose We have a lot of building FPs but I don't think this is quite there in among our finest. It isn't really that sharp, and not exceptionally high resolution that I'm willing to forgive. The blue-hour sky could do we being a little lighter/earlier. The lake occupies too much of the frame, imo, and isn't really a mirror reflection worth keeping. The image is slightly asymmetrical, though that's not bad enough to be an oppose reason. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. lNeverCry 20:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness could indeed be a bit better. I do like the colors though, I also don't mind the rather late blue hour lighting. The composition is absolutely fine with me. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Зебрњак, Старо Нагоричане 23.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 14:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wire-tailed swallowEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 12:03:20 (UTC)

  • I had talked about it to him. It is from some tree parts. It is appreciated if someone having good processing skills help to remove it. Jee 12:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Manojiritty and Jee I removed the noise, if you think that it's not ok, simply revert me. Thanks --The Photographer 22:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Both images made my day this morning. --smial 13:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Amazing image, however, background noise, chromatic aberration and bird aura, different light background for the images --The Photographer 18:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)   Support --The Photographer 22:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support For a photo of a bird in flight / docking, at 420mm, and at around 10MP, this has good sharpness and is an excellent catch. I can forgive the slightly noisy background from ISO 1600 which really shouldn't concern us at 10MP wildlife photo, and would rather that than crude smoothing that risks losing detail round the birds. Shame the shutter speed changed between photos, but strangely the one with the longer exposure is darker. Were they processed the same? If the raw file is available then I can have a go, but am reluctant to process the JPG any further. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Colin. He is away; will share the raw files after two days. Jee 04:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Plenty of wow-factor for me, and if Colin is good with the technical aspects, I can't see any reason not to support this impressive pair of images (and birds). lNeverCry 20:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The lighting is suboptimal, but the huge wow factor is more than enough to compensate. -- King of ♠ 01:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ! -- KTC (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Colin and King. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:1 tianzishan wulingyuan zhangjiajie 2012.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 09:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lacking a geocode but otherwise... -- Thennicke (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 09:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Thennicke. Great light, fine composition, impressive resolution and fantastic scenery! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. --Lucasbosch 12:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A little bit of posterisation at the top left but overall fine. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like something from Lord of the Rings! lNeverCry 20:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It's a gorgeous scenery and normally a no brainer support... but it looks quite tilted to the right - Benh (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, Thennicke, you said we should have more China FPs, and then you found this ... wow! Can't find a more Chinese landscape than this. I hope I get to go back there again, and when I do I want to see this place. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:De zon probeert door de mist te breken. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 06:00:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info The sun tries to break through the fog. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) and surroundings. created all by User:Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 06:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 07:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I like the combination of the traditional "landscape-in-fog-mood" and the double sun; it gives an almost surreal expression. --Pugilist (talk) 07:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Best here is you dont see the horizon. Love winter colors. --Mile (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I had this in my list of possible nominees, too. Great photo, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
  •   Support Jee 12:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 20:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support "I look around / Leaves are brown, now / And the sky is a hazy shade of winter". I have taking a few pictures trying to capture that concept; none of them have come anywhere near this one. Daniel Case (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Paris-7957a.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 21:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info created by idobi - uploaded by idobi - nominated by Idobi -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning. I love the way the moon appears. Quality could be better especially on the right side but sufficient for FP. -- King of ♠ 23:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 01:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose great composition, vivid colors, excellent mood - if only image quality were better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I really like composition, perfect moon-clouds situation. Its not so sharp, but saw camera is not the latest model.--Mile (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It either is or is not an FP, based on the results, regardless of what equipment is used. And in this case, I think it's too noisy and unsharp to be one of the greatest night cityscape pictures, although the composition is beautiful. I would welcome any efforts by idobi to address these issues, because I'd love to be able to support this picture, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I find it a beautiful picture, but the quality is not great.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per Famberhorst. Even given that it was a long exposure, we've seen that these images can be less noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Gedore No. 7 combination wrenches 6–19 mm.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 17:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
  •   Info Gedore No. 7 combination wrenches set from 6 to 19 mm. This is a shift panorama using the Canon TS-E 90 mm because my acrylic plate wasn't large enough for the whole set, additionally it's a focus stack of 5 to 6 images. Post processing to remove dust and make the background pure black.
    Created by Lucasbosch -- uploaded by Lucasbosch -- nominated by Lucasbosch -- LB 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LB 17:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really a good job --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 23:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • LB Did you check "landscape" version ? --Mile (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@PetarM: What makes you ask? Could be that I missed to set it appropriately, but there seems to be no place to check that as far as I can see. What would happen if it is set wrong? --Lucasbosch 12:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Lucasbosch Nothing is wrong with the set. Try to rotate it for 90 degress. It works better. --Mile (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@PetarM: For my taste it looks fine the way it is and it is more space saving when being placed on the right side of articles. Also, the majority of the text on the wrenches is oriented this way, so it's easier to read. --Lucasbosch 14:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Look forward to many more contributions from you. - Benh (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    +1 lNeverCry 20:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lez River, Saint-Clément-de-Rivière cf01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 09:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  •   Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Really a good job --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose All water reflections of trees are beautiful. I think this picture is missing something, like brilliant colors or an outstanding composition, that would set it apart from the others. -- King of ♠ 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info @Ikan Kekek, King of Hearts, Jkadavoor, Michielverbeek, Martin Falbisoner: @Livioandronico2013, INeverCry, Agnes Monkelbaan: I added more saturation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The colors are nice, but nothing quite worthy of FP in terms of the subject IMHO, it's not so interesting. I would have liked better separation of the trees in front and the background trees, to make it more visually appealing. --Lucasbosch 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the contrast beween the dark trees in the foreground and the brighter trees in the background --Llez (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Llez. I also have to say, particularly in response to King, that having looked at more than my share of water-reflection images while creating and populating those categories, this one did make me stop while scrolling through here. What to me works is that the trees sort of suggest a colonnade, and a slightly irregular one at that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Daniel Case, thanks for putting into words what I think a lot of us had probably noticed unconsciously. Christian Ferrer, the slight change in the new edit is fine with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good job Christian. Quite a nice natural abstract. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Berlin, Denkmal für die im Nationalsozialismus ermordeten Sinti und Roma -- 2016 -- 5594.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 07:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 07:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 07:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - That's a pretty striking picture, and of obvious socio-historical and educational value, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While it may represent an important memorial, I find the photograph itself lacking. Low overal contrast, distracting reflections of the trees, distracting floating leaves hanging on the side of the memorial. It looks like a snapshot to me. The context of how the whole puddle looks is also missing, IMHO this should have been included. --LB 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Looks like a shapshot". :-( Never seen snapshots like this. It was made with tripod and I'd choosen a long exposure to accentuate the trees. IMO the the cloudy day is good to show the memorial in autumn. --XRay talk 09:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @XRay: Good to know that you took care when making the photograph, and I respect your decision to render the trees sharply, but still, I find the composition lacking and it doesn't represent the memorial well enough for my taste. I would have liked to see the whole puddle and its decoration around it. As it is, you kind of included the edge of the puddle, but only a bit, and not enough to give someone a good idea of how the whole memorial looks when standing in front of it. --LB 15:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • This must be from polar bear and the keeper ? I would put into description. --Mile (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I thought its about that polar bear and Zoo keeper in Germany. Both died i think. --Mile (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
@PetarM: Mile, I know you're not a native German speaker, but neither am I and yet I can clearly tell from the filename that this is "Memorial to the Sinti and Roma victims of the Nazis". As such I can only assume that you were trying to make a joke, and honestly it's in poor taste given the real purpose of the memorial. Daniel Case (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry Daniel Case, i havent saw word "victims". Joke...grow up. --Mile (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
    • This is description in English : Memorial to the Sinti and Roma in Berlin-Tiergarten (Dani Karavan, 2012), Berlin, Germany. --Mile (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@PetarM: "Ermordeten" means "murdered". I rather think that expressing disapproval of trivializing a crime against humanity like that is the grown-up thing to do ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It gets low readings on my wow-o-meter, sorry. I agree with the assessement of LB, acknowledging that it is not a snapshot. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 23:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose My complaints about Mile's sense of humor aside, the reflection ruins the simplicity of the memorial otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - I'm looking at photos in Category:Memorial to the Sinti and Roma in Berlin-Tiergarten, and what I notice is that this part of the memorial is in water, so every photo of it includes a reflection. How do those of you who think this photo doesn't properly reflect the "simplicity" of the memorial propose for people to photograph it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Canon EF 100mm f2.8L Macro IS USM DSLR lensEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 00:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
  •   Info My studio photographs of the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM DSLR lens. All were taken with a Canon 6D with Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM lens (lighting and flagging setup: Image:Two flash photographic studio for lenses.jpg). Settings: f/8, 1/180 s, ISO 100. 10–25 shots for each setup were focus stacked in Helicon Focus, then masked, dusted and retouched as necessary in Photoshop. Final and only sharpening by highpass filter 1px.
    Created by Lucasbosch – uploaded by Lucasbosch – nominated by Lucasbosch -- LB 00:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LB 00:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 02:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great macro work. Very consistent processing and lighting. I could imagine seeing these images on the-digital-picture.com or somewhere like that -- Thennicke (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is not the kind of subject that most interests me, but I'm super-impressed with this work! I love all the detail and the light. Really great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support "Great macro work" - LOL! -- King of ♠ 06:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great. This is really excellent. Congrats. --Code (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm very impressed! Great work. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As a straight educational product catalogue shot (vs advertising where the image has to have desirable appeal) this is as good as it gets, with even lighting and a totally clean subject. -- Colin (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I also thought I was on the-digital-picture.com for a short moment. Very nice. - Benh (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Slaunger (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great work. --Gyrostat (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support So good I can practically smell the plastic. Daniel Case (talk) 06:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice and very useful on this project. --Reguyla (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:MNBA aos 80 anos 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 22:11:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
  •   Info created by Tomaz Silva/Agência Brasil - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ~nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad crop, perspective, noisy. Looks like a snapshot, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Slaunger. lNeverCry 02:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Slaunger.--Cayambe (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Slaunger; perspective problems are obvious even at thumb size. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, its a nice image but it doesn't meet the minimum size limit technical criteria required for a featured picture. Reguyla (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:MNBA aos 80 anos 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 22:11:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
  •   Info created by Tomaz Silva/Agência Brasil - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ~nmaia d 22:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me, I miss a clear idea with the composition. Needs perspective correction, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Slaunger. lNeverCry 02:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Slaunger. --Cayambe (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, its a nice image but it doesn't meet the minimum size limit technical criteria required for a featured picture. Reguyla (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Berdorf (LU), Aesbachtal -- 2015 -- 4550.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Unsharp foreground on the left is slightly distracting to me and might be cropped out, but I don't know what that would do to the composition. And the composition is the main reason I support this picture. It's a kind of lovely miniature landscape, with the cobwebs between the plants accentuating their formal relationship in the picture frame. It's best viewed at full screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm too distracted by all the plants on the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case, a tighter crop would to accentuate the main subject would be nice.--Lucasbosch 14:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'll crop out a part of the bottom within the next days. --XRay talk 19:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case. Too many random plants that are in focus distract the viewer. -- King of ♠ 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others an no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed @Daniel Case, Lucasbosch, King of Hearts, Uoaei1: Crop is now improved. Hopefully it's better now. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Caye Caulker Belize aerial (20688990128).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by dronepicr on Flickr - uploaded by User:Dronepicr - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this is an outstanding drone picture. My only hesitation in nominating it is that I hope people don't vote against it because the angle of the photo makes the ground diagonal, instead of straight, but I nominate it, anyway, to see what you all think. P.S. I didn't see a category for drone or aerial pictures; if you know of a good subcategory to add to the "Category" line, please feel free to add it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support No, I find the ground fine; as long as the horizon is level, which it appears to be. Great find too! Really lots of wow, and for a drone pic image quality is ok, but could be better -- Thennicke (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I really should involve myself with Photo Challenge more, but I wish there was some "QI" barrier to the nominations or something - unfortunately some of the winners are shocking from a photographic perspective -- Thennicke (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's because the judges have to work with the submissions they get. When they get higher-quality submissions, the results improve. Quite a few FPs have been among the top 3 results in photo challenges over the years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just not enough wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You will have to rework the colors here, think blue is +, green is missing. Some saturation maybe. --Mile (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the colors and composition. -- King of ♠ 04:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, I struggle to decide what the subject is --Lucasbosch 14:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - No argument on "no wow", but to me, anyway, the subject seems obvious: the bright area smack dab in the center of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportMeiræ 02:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Talleitspitze, Ötztaler Alpen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 13:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sand sculpture - Puerto de Mogan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 09:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support refreshingly different --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice, something new here. Maybe a low level view could be more interesting with the sky on top --The Photographer 12:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    •   Info It was at a popular beach. In the background there was no sky, but hundreds of bathing people. --Llez (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You might try diorama here. --Mile (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very nice image. But IMO it is a non permanent art work and this is not FoP in Spain. --XRay talk 19:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support because it's very nice. --XRay talk 07:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support @XRay: In general, works that are designed to be naturally destroyed by the elements are considered permanent. -- King of ♠ 19:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
But what if that guy from the Charles Atlas ads comes across it on the beach and kicks it into dust? Would that make it temporary?   Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I do not fancy the angle too much, but won't oppose either as it is refreshing. As The Photographer suggest a photo taken from a lower level would have been more interesting. I realize it was a busy beach, but I think an interesting position would have been to get the camera to the ground level, put on a zoom or a macro lens and make a detail shot of some of the sand houses showing just the sand castle elements with no traces of the normal beach and background. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Composition is pretty good in my opinion, but I'm supporting this mainly for uniqueness, though of course the picture quality is high, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 21:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Clear depiction of a very interesting subject -- Thennicke (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this AOV here as it cover a lot of details which we will miss in a lower position of the camera. This looks like an areal view of a castle. The light is harsh; but I can understand as it is from a beach. Jee 04:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 13:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!)    19:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Moscow ParkKulturyR vestibule 04-2016.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 07:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
  •   Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love the colors and enjoy the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support lNeverCry 08:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I just can't keep my eyes off the power lines. The left crop is also a little distracting. -- King of ♠ 09:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Power lines. Yann (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, per King of Hearts. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cables in foreground and lamppost to the left leans distractingly much. Main subject itself is quite nicely lit, but the overall composition does not convince me, sorry -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Very weak support I have faced this same dilemma so many times myself ... great angle but for the wires. And so many times I've sighed and put the camera down. So молодец for trying where I usually give up. And for doing your best to make them less distracting instead of cheating entirely and cloning them out. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Per the others, sorry -- Thennicke (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Orange hibiscus.jpgEdit

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

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - You might have moved the blue chairs (I think they are) away, but they arguably add interest to the background, and pro or con on the chairs, this is a great closeup of the flower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The blue object/s aren't natural. I would've moved them. They distract from the flower. lNeverCry 03:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose, background is noisy and it seems a little underexposed to me. Nice color though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting background elements. Center of flower is not as crisply resolved as I would anticipate in a a flower FP, sorry. Colours are good though, and it is refreshing to see other topics than church interiors nominated by you. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks Slaunger, but unfortunately it is a rumor. I have [4] FP of paintings, statues, panoramas etc ... it is logical that something is more common as many people have more of FP of flowers, insects, or ... churches. Greetings.--LivioAndronico (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Livioandronico2013: Thanks for clarifying, that you are not a church interior only FP creator. It was the only type of FPs I recalled having seeen previously, but I did not double-check.-- Slaunger (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Natural nude tree.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 20:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Please tell us why you think this photo should be featured. I'd like to have your thoughts on that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I could tell you it is a study on texture and volume, or that the forms on these trees are interesting, or that I and some others have a dirty mind... ;) Please see #REDIRECT[[5]] and #REDIRECT[[6]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Reject. Charles (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, it was clear for me after a split second, why you nominated this, Tomas. Hahaha. Well spotted. A brilliantly illuminated trunk, nice texture and shape. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me. File:Enterolobium cyclocarpum 01.jpg has much greater visual impact. I would support that. lNeverCry 02:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I tried to explore some suitable categories. Jee 04:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, nothing featurable here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - So ultimately, I think this is a moderately funny joke, since it was explained to me, but the composition doesn't really add up for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Vista de Baku, Azerbaiyán, 2016-09-26, DD 108-114 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 18:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.