Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Kandidater till utvalda bilder

Det här är kandidater till att bli utvalda bilder.

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

Det finns också en kronologisk lista av utvalda bilder.

NomineringEdit

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

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

OmröstningsreglerEdit

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

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

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

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

KandidaterEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Rhododendron In Munnar.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 16:51:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Seven Saints (Седмочисленици, Св Наум).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 15:07:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Macedonia
  •   Info Seven Saints who honored in several southeast European Orthodox Churches as the creators and distributors of the Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabet. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is chroma noise in the upper part. Also, please add fresco category.--Peulle (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Peulle its handheld, ISO 1600. Frescos added.--Mile (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question I came across similar paintings in Cappadocia and I can't really compare, but I'm wondering if this shouldn't be a bit more saturated - Benh (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Peulle,Benh check again, true, its is more saturated, i had too much red/blue inside, and put offset and gamma. I have catalogue beside, and now is more comparable. They even put more, but again, its about camerman who made it, i dont like too much saturated...more to be real. This one in St Naum all are very out-of-saturation. Can you show me that one you saw ? 7 saints is very rare, and Greeks dont have it, more Slavic people. --Mile (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not doubting the value of the photo. Just questioning the saturation. Here is what I saw in Cappadocia [1]. I left default setting (just tweaked the WB). - Benh (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Ebenthal Gurnitz Propstei und Pfarrkirche Sankt Martin 06032015 0283.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 14:37:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Life around jungle.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 11:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Pallab kabir, uploaded by Pallabkabir, nominated by Masum-al-Hasan -- Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great mood, high quality. --Yann (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition, but the image is really unsharp --Shishir 15:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Even on 24 MPx (author left full size) is sharp enough. But composition, color gradience make this shot very original. --Mile (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm with Shishir on this one.--Peulle (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Statue of Liberty, by Anthony DELANOIX 2015-06-20 (Unsplash).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 09:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Anthony Delanoix, uploaded by , nominated by Yann (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The light is a bit flat, but the composition and sharpness are good.--Peulle (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition. -- Pofka (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Flat light, strange WB (too warm), and it looks cut off at the bottom. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support nice mood -- Wolf im Wald 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Curonian Spit NP 05-2017 img17 aerial view at Epha Dune.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 09:14:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bow of MS Stena Danica crossing Kattegat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 22:51:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Probably, but I can't change the lens on my camera.   --cart-Talk 09:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You can if you buy a time machine, go back in time and do it. ;-D --Peulle (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Even that won't work since I don't own a DSLR. (I thought that everyone knew about my crappy cameras by now.)   --cart-Talk 13:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Add-up lens ? I had it on Canon A590. Dont worry, Peulle, its not Titanic, next time. --Mile (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me as well. -- Pofka (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I've looked at the image again and I don't know if it's the memory of my navy days or what, but there's definitely something about this image that speaks to me. I just don't see many images like this one.--Peulle (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Пронурок (Cinclus cinclus) недалеко від гнізда.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 19:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
  •   Info created by Alexkrol - uploaded by Alexkrol - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Great pose and nice composition, but my feeling is that not enough of the bird is sharp for this photo to reach the level of other FP bird photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Color space:Uncalibrated. --Mile (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Ikan says; and 1/100 sec not fast enough for a moving bird. Charles (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Close, but not quite sharp enough.--Peulle (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan and Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Agios Minas bay Chalkida Greece.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 09:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Island of Euboea, clouds, as seen from the bay of Agios Minas, in Chalkida, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sky covers about 2/3 of the picture, the rest is usual holiday picture with unnatural colors (why is it so dark in sunlight?!). I'm sorry, but I don't think it is special in any way. Good for holiday pictures album, but not for the featured picture candidates nomination. -- Pofka (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Pofka. --Karelj (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Usual comment here now, it is the current fashion in FPC. Pfff.--Jebulon (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Well, sorry to say, but per Pofka... - Benh (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like the sky and I don't think this is just a typical tourist snap shot at all. And the darkness is presumably logically explained by cloud cover. But oddly enough (or maybe not), it's the positioning of the buoys in the picture frame that's ruining the form for me. It's possible that cloning them out would solve the problem for me, but I hardly ever make such recommendations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per everyone else. Daniel Case (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:SolarEclipseCorvallis Aug 21 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 08:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info created by Tuanna2010 - uploaded by Tuanna2010 - nominated by Jcpag2010 -- Jcpag2010 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jcpag2010 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If I, taking a photo of an eclipse for the first time ever, about a thousand kilometers to the east, could get it sharper, all of these could have been sharper too. Daniel Case (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose pretty cool collection, but I'm a bit disturbed by the square edges ot the individual shots. It just looks like a very quick editing job. As for the individual images, I suppose they could be nominated separately or as a set nomination but I don't know if the quality is high enough to pass.--Peulle (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Image:Secondary School in France.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 01:21:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Secondary School in France.jpg
  •   Info created by Prismo345 - uploaded by Prismo345 - nominated by Prismo345 --   | Prismo (disc. · contr.) 01:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --   | Prismo (disc. · contr.) 01:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment A very nice architecture photo but before starting to asses this there are a few things that needs fixing. The image needs to be properly categorized (see Commons:Categories) this goes for the faulty FP category above as well. It would also help to know exactly where the photo was taken, you do that by adding the Template:Location. The description is a little too brief and could be added to. The file is also a bit small for such a photo, so it looks like it has been downsized a bit too much, please upload the original file. --cart-Talk 09:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Less than 2 megapixels resolution (1600x1200). I think it should be speedy declined as it violates the nominating requirements? -- Pofka (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Since this is a new user who is not aware of all our rules, I think it's only fair to give them a sporting chance to correct things per my comment above before booting them out. How are we going to get new good photographers if we are rude to them on sight? 'Pinging' Prismo345 to make sure they get this message. --cart-Talk 15:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a shame there are those valid issues W.carter brought up because on composition alone, I like this! Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that the composition is quite good, but doesn't this need to be FPXed? I suppose it wouldn't do any harm to wait 24 hours, though, if that's what people want to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that this is the original image, there is no other size, so that is the one that remains to vote.   | Prismo (disc. · contr.) 22:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Per above comment and this discussion, I think it's safe to FPX this if you want to. --cart-Talk 22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is smaller than the minimum size of 2 megapixels. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Косарі в дельті ДУнаю.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 17:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
  •   Info created by Ryzhkov Sergey - uploaded by Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I particularly like the fact that an interaction between birds is shown. This is the Google Translate into English of the Ukrainian file description: "The young bird is still trying to ask the parents for food. Kosar (Platalea leucorodia) is a rare bird that breaks within the Danube Biosphere Reserve." What does "breaks" mean? Rests during its yearly migration? Or does it simply mean that's where the birds live? Commons search is once again hanging for me, so that I can't see what other FPs we might have of this bird. Why does Commons search hang so much? Do all of you have that same problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
not breaks but nesting :)--Anntinomy (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support About perfect. --A.Savin 20:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Could be sharper, compo good. @Ikan Kekek it means "is nesting in borders of Danubian biosphere"...slowly also. They have some problems. --Mile (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Alexander. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Partially a bit noisy, but very special and interessting. --Hockei (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Mile, not perfect, but the birds are in focus and the poses are good. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful! - Benh (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit noisy, but that's not enough to hold this back. Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  05:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The front bird is blurred, but the great composition makes it excusable. Charles (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Saint Naum Monastery (манастир Свети Наум код Охрида, Македонија).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 15:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Macedonia
  •   Info Saint Naum Monastery (Sveti Naum) near Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia. Built in 9th cent. My shot. --Mile (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 17:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Fantastic. Could you please add "9th-century" to the file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Added. St. Naum was pupil of St Cyrill and Metodius. What i didnt write, there is a legend...Naum grave is inside, and if you put your ear on the grave, you can hear his heart beating. I did hear it. Some poeple know this, tourists not so much. Wondering if this should go into description. Its not mentioned on Wiki. --Mile (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 23:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Could be sharper for the resolution but OK. -- King of ♠ 00:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Zhangzhugang (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per King Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I stayed there six weeks ago! The monastery is a hotel now. Charles (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Its monastery, some accept visitors. --Mile (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, it could be s little sharper but it's not enough for me to oppose it. Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  05:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Herbaceous plants of choram county.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 14:43:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Litang Ge'nyen 2014.09.16 09-11-25.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 11:51:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Khadzhibey left forecastle 2017 G1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 05:01:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Left forecastle of the passenger vessel catamaran "Khadzhibey".
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition, excellent colors, and at least something different (difficult)...--Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 23:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Now this is how to take a cart-esque FP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid it isn't making me go wow. Rope is perhaps too random in organisation. -- Colin (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose All the good element that I love are there, but the lines, angle and light don't add up to a wow or FP composition for me, sorry. --cart-Talk 08:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. --Karelj (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Chaotic rope, which is probably the main subject here. -- Pofka (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 17:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Rusty chain in fishing boat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 04:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice colors but being a stationary object, the quality/sharpness bar for rusty chains on FP is much higher than this, IMO. At least some focus stacking should be done. --cart-Talk 07:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Castelazesque, therefore good in conception and idea, but achievement could be sharper, even without focus stacking.--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart with an assist from Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose cart & Jebulon arguments. -- Pofka (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Wiesbaden BW 2017-04-24 20-51-36.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 15:56:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The "Kurhaus" is the main object, so I put the fountain close to the border to guide the viewers look from the first over the second fountain to the building. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Which is also the reason why the nearest foreground is a bit unsharp. I think your point of view is valid, so I'll give you mild   Support, though I wish there were some space to the right of the fountain, and the lack of it creates tension in the composition, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:SP KazanskyCathedral 2370.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 15:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Cathedral of Our Lady of Kazan in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Created and uploaded by Ludvig14 - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 15:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 15:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 16:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 16:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Неплохо, but you could correct bordes (PD). --Mile (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question The extreme left and right sides look like they have a black line on top and the rest of the semicircular wings also seem to have a border on top. Is that really there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ----Ermell (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 04:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great photo, but far too much tone mapping. Obvious halos at thumbnail size. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --KSK (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Thennicke--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't think the halos are that bad. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Thennicke --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Thennicke -- Wolf im Wald 16:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:2015.07.04.-06-Eilenburg Ost--Gemeiner Schwefelporling.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 14:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Polyporaceae
  •   Info New produced. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A QI of a fungus on a tree, I don't doubt, but not special enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The direction of light is a bit boring for me.--Peulle (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel, --cart-Talk 17:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I guess I agree with you all, but the fungus is very interesting. Maybe from a different angle or in different light it might be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Hockei (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Blue eye, by Amanda Dalbjörn, 2017 (Unsplash).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 13:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Amanda Dalbjörn, uploaded by , nominated by Yann (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but too noisy. I don't understand what there is a reason for this. --Hockei (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, somewhat per Hockei. The composition doesn't really make sense to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise aside, the 3/4 window reflection in the eye is not the best way to light such a subject. Actually being outside would have been better. I also suspect the blue in the eye is oversaturated. --cart-Talk 07:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It is not necessary to be so patronising. She is not the only one of us with a bit to learn. Charles (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not my intention at all, apologies if you think it sounded that way. Sentence is removed. --cart-Talk 16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose First, the unsharp brow is distracting; second, a composition like this makes me think of sci-fi paperback covers where we see that the eye belongs to an android, a cyborg or something like that. Since it apparently doesn't here, I feel let down by the payoff I didn't get (Basically, when you do this there should be something interesting about the eye itself to draw us in). Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition and light, but there's too much noise.--Peulle (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel Case. -- Pofka (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think the comments here are really meaningful, but well... Yann (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:2013.06.04.-24-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Kleiner Sonnenroeschen-Blaeuling.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 11:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a good example of a backlit butterfly, because the hairs (along with the feet and head) are so clear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a high quality photo technically, but I cannot see why a backlit photo like this should be FP. It just doesn't appeal to me. Charles (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharing Charlesjsharp's opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Anntinomy (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles. -- Pofka (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:2014I7686 - Львів.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 08:14:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Молния на Каменной могиле.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 22:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created by Anatoliy Volkov - uploaded by Anatoliy Volkov - nominated by -- Anntinomy (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Atsme 📞 22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose on grounds of technical quality. The image is grainy and suffers from extensive long exposure noise, as well as some color fringing. I also feel it's oversaturated. Lightning photos are quite common so there's no compelling reason to overlook the IQ issues here. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unnatural post-processing; tint is +40 in the magenta direction. But I disagree with Juliancolton and think IQ is good enough for a night landscape. -- King of ♠ 05:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stars are drawn here. --Mile (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Manipulated unrealistically, per King. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King, and I don't think those a drawn stars, looks more like some artifacts since they are on the ground-part too. --cart-Talk 17:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but unnatural. -- Pofka (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Panoramic view of MontrealEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 18:27:00 (UTC)

  •   Info Set of panoramic views of the city of Montreal from Mount Royal, Quebec, Canada. All by me, Poco2 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm aware that not long ago ArildV successfully nominated a similar set but I'd still like to give it a try. I enjoyed the lighting of both and that lightnings gives the night image a special touch, I believe. Poco2 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. I hope that lightning didn't get close to you. Was it really a good idea to stay on the top of Mont Royal and shoot in that situation? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    Ikan, I assure you that I've been in dangerous situations to get the shot I was aiming, but this one was none of them. The lightning is further than you could think. Indeed, it didn't rain where I was standing. Poco2 20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - WOW!! Add points for creativity, and prearranging a lightening bolt!! Atsme 📞 22:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Superb. PumpkinSky talk 01:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Check all lights in night shot, all lights are problematic, like you moved camera, was this same lens like that monument !? --Mile (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose big wow, but the daylight pic had not the best lighting conditions and per Mile: almost all lights (even the lighting) on the night shot have artifacts. --Ivar (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Impressing.--Ermell (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As someone else who was at Wikimania, I can say that you couldn't be too choosy on that day about the light (Or, why this year's Wikimania group photo had to be taken a day later, in a less desirable location) Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Somehow these photos make the city look alive and that can't be said about many panoramas. --cart-Talk 07:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Lévis city, Québec 07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 15:23:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
  •   Info All by -- The Photographer 15:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Stitching error in the wood panels. -- King of ♠ 05:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
      Question Can you point it out in a note? What might look like an error to you, if it's what I think it is, may be a staggering of the edges of the planks. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
      Done -- King of ♠ 00:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The Photographer, did you do any stitching/merging in PS, etc? It's a bit unusual as you'd think the second plank would be a trip hazard and the planks seem to curve and they go to the right. I do like the photo though.PumpkinSky talk 02:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I need fix the problems with this image, thanks for the reviews guys, yes I think that there is a mergin problem because the wood can't be curved --The Photographer 10:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Sunbird Amethyst 2017 06 18 9677.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 10:48:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
  •   Info An amethyst sunbird (a nectarivore) visiting an Aloe flower. All by -- Alandmanson (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alandmanson (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough on the head for FP; the focus is on the body and the head is unfortunately not in the same plane. Charles (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't think the entire back third of the body or tail are focused enough, either. Very nice photo and a solid QI, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Without even looking at the picture in closeup, the background doesn't work with the foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Heracleum lanatum fruit.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 05:28:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info created by SKas - uploaded by SKas - nominated by SKas -- KSK (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KSK (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - lady bug and all - yes! Atsme 📞 22:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Indeed too busy. It is quite difficult to watch at one point of the picture. -- Pofka (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:St John Baptist woodcarved statuette from Groeden.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 14:56:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but looks a bit underexposed to me --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thanks for the support. I kept the image rather dark to correct partially the glare (the worst was corrected by retouching). But I believe a darker view gives a bit of intimacy to this very peculiar representation of Saint John. In any case I added a brighter version for evaluation --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Underexposed. Increasing the brightness might cause problems with the highlights.--Ermell (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Underexposed --Mile (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Underexposed. -- Pofka (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--Peulle (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternative versionEdit

 

  •   Comment I propose a new version - --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Why is this sort of image so noisy? Charles (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Charles. Just not quite sharp enough. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--Peulle (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I downsized "this sort of image" (thanks Charles) because it is a cropped image while the original size of 5,504 × 8,256 pixels was maintained. It should look better now at full size --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • By 'this sort of image', I just meant a 'studio' shot, not an outdoors shot. Charles (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles and Daniel Case. -- Pofka (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:360° Panorama vom Hochgolling.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 13:45:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info Panoramic view from the summit of the Hochgolling, the highest mountain of the Lower Tauern in Austria. - All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very well done --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Uoaei1-- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Uoaeil. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support good shot --Mile (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support very very nice — Rhododendrites talk |  21:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Augenweide.--Ermell (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - absolutely. Atsme 📞 22:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. I was against having the people to start with, but I think they're OK. Charles (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 15:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:CN Tower, Toronto, Canada (Unsplash DJ kOgH5u0o).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 09:49:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info created by Scott Webb, uploaded by , nominated by Yann (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 09:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Pretty picture but why is this so off-center? I could see a little off but this is way over on the left side. PumpkinSky talk 11:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The idea is to follow the rule of thirds. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Neutral Yea, but I think it's too far to the left. PumpkinSky talk 17:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - It doesn't matter to me that it's on the left; artist's decision. It's really the cloud formation that makes the picture work for me, anyway, so I welcome seeing a bunch of those clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Extraordinary. --Hockei (talk) 20:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - just looking at the image makes me feel like I did when I was a kid laying in the front yard looking up at the stars. Atsme 📞 23:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfortunately. I know it could be argued that this is largely a matter of personal opinion, but I have to agree with PumpkinSky – the rule of thirds is a good guide, but it's not a justification unto itself. The far-left placement of the main subject feels unnatural and forced; this isn't how I would look at the tower in real life. I'd prefer a central composition. I'm sure this will be promoted with or without me standing in the way, and I won't get upset about it, but these are my feelings. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support To me the clouds make the offset tower interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel. -- King of ♠ 05:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree very much with Julian's critique -- Thennicke (talk) 11:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Works very well. --cart-Talk 17:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Cirsium eriophorum flower head (Kozara National Park, Republika Srpska) v2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 07:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Family : Asteraceae (Sunflowers)
  •   Info Cirsium eriophorum flower head (Kozara National Park, Republika Srpska). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I really like this! As pretty often happens, Commons search is hanging when I try to search this category for VIs, but this looks excellent for VIC, too, and I can't imagine there would be a better image in this scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ikan Kekek i already put for VI other image, similar, for this group Cirsium eriophorum close-up. --Mile (talk) 10:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course I remember that picture. I didn't realize it was the same species. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The other one has a flower head forming. PumpkinSky talk 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice. PumpkinSky talk 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Now this is how a flower closeup should look! Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - awesome close-up! Atsme 📞 23:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 14:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants/Asterales#Family : Asteraceae (Sunflowers)

File:Falu koppargruva July 2017 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 06:45:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  •   Info Falun copper mine with the great pit in the foreground and the mining town of Falun in the background. The mine operated for a millennium from the 10th century to 1992. Since 2001 a World Heritage site and and described as one of the most outstanding industrial monuments in the world. We have one FP of the great pit but this photo is taken in the opposite direction and also show the connection between the mine and the historic mining town of Falun. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting, well performed. Why not used? --A.Savin 21:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Done In use now. I have been to busy taken and uploading photos in september.--ArildV (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, although I think it would work better with less sky. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yep. I waited a day or so to think about this and I don't have a great reason not to support this. Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Educational/encyclopedic value? Yep! But a picture of a big hole in the ground in low light is not beautiful or striking. The other photo you link shows off some interesting ridges, because they're given a closeup in fuller light. This is a very good VI, in my opinion, but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Contrast is very low, so the image is dull -- Thennicke (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Difficult without sunlight. IMO brightness and contrast should be increased a bit to make it work.--Ermell (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Notre-Dame de Montréal BasilicaEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 06:27:14 (UTC)

  •   Info Set of images of the interior of the Notre-Dame Basilica, located in the historic district of Old Montreal, in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The interior of basilica, built in Gothic Revival style, is impressive with vivid colors, stars and filled with hundreds of intricate wooden carvings and several religious statues. It was built between 1823 and 1829 after a design of James O'Donnell and it has become one of the landmarks of the city. All by me, Poco2 06:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I've seen many churches in my life but this one is one of those that really impressed me after I visited it in 2007, but the pictures I took back then didn't make it justice. Poco2 06:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 06:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment First let me say I'm very happy to see you contributing new images again. I recall Diliff's version File:Notre-Dame Basilica Interior, Montreal, Canada - Diliff.jpg (which actually dates from 2006) and his comments at the FPC: "It's quite a dark interior and to preserve the highlight details, I've chosen not to bump the shadows too much. As is often the case, the full size image doesn't look as dark as it does in the thumbnail so please view at 100%". This last comment is true: if one makes his image full-screen, the eye adjusts to the lower ambient light compared to a thumbnail on white. My first thoughts on seeing this collection was "who turned the lights up max" and "why is everything so yellow". Aside from the HDR brightness and colours, I don't think the pulpit shot is at FP level. You've shot it too close and the extreme perspective distortion is too much. I'll have a closer study of the set later. -- Colin (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Colin: You're probably right about the pulpit, but there was not much playroom behind me. Either this way or with a partial view of the pulpit due to the benches (as there was no possibility to get to the upper level of the basilica). The pulpit is not essential part of the set, though, I could remove it. Poco2 07:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Good point by Colin. This set looks as shiny as Las Vegas lights. Comparing to Diliff version, it is clear that naturally this place is not that shiny. EDIT :   Support the new version of the set. -- Pofka (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, I have to say it never looked anything like this when I visited. I will freely admit that I visited in January late in the afternoon where there was no ambient light filtering through the windows, whereas there is in Poco's version, but I don't think it needed to be processed with so much luminosity. It seems much too bright and saturated, not just compared to my recollection of the scene, but also aesthetically speaking. I think all the images would benefit from a more low-key approach to processing but that is just my gut feeling. Diliff (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Well, from my point of view, your version, David looks too dark to me, to be honest. Yes, we had daylight coming into the church, as you can see here, but still I feel that the lighting in the church was stronger. These pictures do reflect pretty much what I recall, I can surely reduce the exposition a bit, but not to that level. Regarding saturation I've to say that the colors of this basilica are really vivid, specially the altar. It would be great to hear the opinion of somebody who has been recently there. Poco2 08:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying you should reduce it to the levels of my image. As I said, mine was taken without any ambient light as it was dark outside. The lighting was very different so I'm not saying it should look like mine. My image looks as it looked when I visited (very dark, just the lights of the altar and a few lights on the columns). Yours obviously had more ambient light during your visit, and I can see that more of the lights in the stalls were turned on, as well as more lights on the altar too. I'm just saying that regardless of how it was when you visited, it appears a little too bright in these images (objectively speaking). The colours are a bit washed out and some highlights blown or nearly blown (perhaps just one colour channel blown, which results in a flat area of no detail). Look at the altar and ceiling, there's a lot of detail missing there. Look at the rays of light coming from the middle of the spires in the centre - there's shades of yellow that are almost completely missing - it looks almost white. I just think this is the result of overexposure (or at least processing so that it is too bright). We don't perceive really luminous colours as 'blown' in the same way a camera and display with limited dynamic range portrays them. I can't imagine that this is how it really looked in person. Diliff (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
          • David, I checked the sources of light again. Apart from the fact that apparently all lamps were on, when I visited it, there are several light inlets in the church not just in the walls, but in the roof, some are over those lamps in the middle of the nave and a bigger one over the main altar. About your comments on overexposure will check that closely this evening. Poco2 12:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose HDRish colors, temperature, with last one flare problems. --Mile (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I was there last summer (that is, summer of 2016), on an afternoon. There was some light coming in, but if I remember correctly, it wasn't nearly as bright as depicted in these photos, although it was brighter than when Diliff was there. I feel like the atmosphere in the church was closer to Diliff's version, though. I hope my girlfriend, a former resident of Montreal, has a chance to look at these photos, because she could say whether it ever looked this bright in her experience. I'll let you know what she has to say when I'm able to show these to her. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Need perspectives fix, color temperature and wrong light processing. I know this building and how it look and the pictures are not showing the reality --The Photographer 10:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • The Photographer: could you be more concrete about those perspective issues (maybe adding some notes if you don't mind)? Poco2 12:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Por ejemplo, las columnas en la parte superior parecen estiradas hacia las esquinas. --The Photographer 15:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The Photographer: what you refer to are not perspective issues (as verticals are verticals), but rather "distortion issues", which IMHO are unavoidable in the corners. Poco2 17:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm puzzled with the colors. The top of the pulpit is deformed.--Jebulon (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've uploaded a new version of the series with less saturation and exposure, the difference should be visible but not dramatic. I've also removed the pulpit picture from the series, I agree with the comments in that case. David, the dynamic range in the church was considerable, my darkest frames do in fact have some overexposed dots (lamps) but not in the altar. Poco2 18:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • It's normal to have blown highlights in the lamps. It's nearly impossible to process lamps properly anyway from my experience, because Lightroom doesn't actually provide enough control to reduce the highlights enough - partly due to the sliders not going far enough, and partly because the processing engine seems to have trouble with extreme highlight reduction. So if there was no overexposure in the altar then it was just processed too brightly I think. At least no information was lost, you just needed to reduce the luminosity a bit. I think it's an improvement now, the altar's colours look more natural and the exposure looks closer to natural. Diliff (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support the new versions as an acceptable compromise between what was and what can be achieved. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Much better, but i wont support set because last is still out, last two are maybe out. First two are best. --Mile (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel. What's much better than in the previous version is that the paintings are not blown out. There are some parts of some photos that could be a bit sharper, but I am content to leave you to your own devices to do something or nothing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - while perfection may be hairline elusive the aesthetics and overall dynamics are not. Atsme 📞 23:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --Ermell (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. Well done. Zhangj1079 (Bonjour!) 23:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with Jebulon but is a great job for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Parnassia palustris - Niitvälja bog.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2017 at 05:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info Marsh Grass-of-Parnassus (Parnassia palustris), all by Ivar (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality not there for common flower. Hard to get it handheld in this compo. --Mile (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't asses the technical quality, but whether the photo is special. I feel nothing when I look at it. The quarter crop from a vertical view doesn't give me wow. --Hockei (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose Nice compo, but per Mile I think we could a shot with the whole flower in focus. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ...and 7 --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Vilnius Cathedral Chapel of Saint Casimir, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2017 at 16:48:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Ikan Kekek: Not really sure about that rainbowy area. It might also be due to marble as there also are other shining areas (f.e. near right lamp). There is no other way to capture the whole chapel as it is one of the Vilnius Cathedral side rooms and it has quite small gates, so centered image is not possible here. -- Pofka (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. That seems to me like a good argument for VIC, but not for supporting a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No, such a distorted image may be interesting but not excellent. That's my opinion. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The distortion is one thing but there's also that light disturbance in the upper left section.--Peulle (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    • It's a lens flare, difficult to avoid with strong light coming in through the window. And as Pofka said, it's a very small room so unfortunately this angle of view is needed to see enough of it. I can understand the criticisms though, it is not ideal. But the compromises are necessary in this case. Diliff (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I understand that compromises were necessary, but in this case I do think they mean the picture could not be featurable. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--cart-Talk 07:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Trier Kurfürstliches Palais BW2017-09-10 09-50-35.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2017 at 08:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice place and I'd love to support, however too strong unsharpness at edges. Sorry --A.Savin 14:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose Such amazing capture but it is just too unsharp... Really pity... -- Pofka (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful place, very good composition and sharp enough for me. I can vote only positive. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Wrong compo IMO. Needs a crop at left, and more space above and below.--Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Minaret of Mosque Zitouna.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2017 at 11:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  •   Info all by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support a lot of technical issues at full size (e.g. lack of sharpness, CAs); much better when downscaled a bit - the file's more than large enough even at 50%. Appears a bit underexposed, though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose for many of the same reasons mentioned by Martin. Seems like someone tried to compensate for the underexposure by overprocessing—there's a line of some sort around the columns, and the shadows seem too soft, as if vigorously suppressed. And the sky color seems a little bit off at some points.

    Also, I'm not impressed with the composition; this through-the-columns view works better when there's more of it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Per Daniel. -- Pofka (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

  Support --fedaro (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Magpie moth (Abraxas grossulariata).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2017 at 09:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bow of a bark, Aghios Minas, Chalkida, Greece.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 18:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Evening light, a bow of an abandoned barque, Chalkida, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question Is that a small dust spot in the middle of the ring? Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Bonjour. Magnified at max zoom, I think this is a small arachnoid building the net !--Jebulon (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Nice detail and texture, although I think it could be better served by cropping in more closely, getting the unsharp areas out of the picture. Daniel Case (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Apart from Golden hour, nothing special. Sorry. --A.Savin 17:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 17:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A. Savin. --Karelj (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin. Texture is somewhat interesting, but I'm not bowled over. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A. Savin. --Yann (talk) 08:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Roussel, Paris, ses fauxbourgs et ses environs, 1731.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 16:01:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
  •   Info created by Roussel - uploaded by Paris 16 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow. Great details, very good quality. Yann (talk) 16:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Got a 502 error; will try again later. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • You can see the original version on the LOC.--Paris 16 (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
        •   Support Wow! I bet those dots are individual blades of grass at this scale. Daniel Case (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This is awesome - a really big full-size antique map of Paris. The scan is excellent, you can even see the flaws in the paper and each individual letter, pen stroke and line. :) --Peulle (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support This one has crazy file size... Came from the future. -- Pofka (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Mallnitz Seebachtal Wasserfälle 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 14:24:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Jinyun Xiandu 2017.09.10 06-47-19.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 13:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by myself. -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Zhangzhugang (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great composition and more classically Chinese, but unsharp and noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case.--Peulle (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel. --cart-Talk 08:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   weak support could be better technically - but great mood --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Zhangzhugang I'm close to support, but think you could have processed this better in Lightroom to avoid so much noise in the background. For example, using a mask when sharpening and then apply a small amount of NR (see this for example).
  • Above comment apparently made by Colin who forgot to sign it. --cart-Talk 07:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone,especially Colin. I have adjust the white balance and reduce noise in the new version. Below is an alternative photo.--Zhangzhugang (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel. -- Pofka (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wonderful image. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivar (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't understand what you've done with the white balance. Is was good before. Now it's much too blue as far I see. --Hockei (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Oppose You ruined that mysterious composition here. -- Pofka (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Another picture. Therefore It isn't an alternative. The other one's composition is better in the way as Pofka said. --Hockei (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Layers of sedimentary rock in Makhtesh Ramon (50754).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 03:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by me — Rhododendrites talk |  03:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  03:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support for pure fascination. I might want a bit more sky, but so what? Artist's decision. Very slight grain is not an issue, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 12:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice color and texture. Daniel Case (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very interesting layers of rocks but not a very unusual picture. No FP at all to me.--Ermell (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Mile (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have just scrolled through the pictures of this category and quickly realized: they look better than this. This is just some kind of fragment of rock/mountain and not so impressive as other pictures in this category which are wide panoramas, stunning waterfalls, taken at perfect timing and so on. This is just way too easy to capture compared to other pictures in this category. So, I believe, this one doesn't belong with them. -- Pofka (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Pofka. --Karelj (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The relatively short aspect ratio detracts from the grandeur of the scene. -- King of ♠ 03:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Ship in the SF Bay fog (40406).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2017 at 02:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info all by me. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I was on a ferry on the San Francisco Bay recently and saw this big ship passing through a little pocket of light amidst dark fog. I don't think it's a traditional FPC, but I love the drama of the lost ship (in the literary sense) passing cloud-covered islands, surrounded by dark fog with just a little bit of light and blue sky. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Since it came up at QIC, I should mention that I did not add vignetting to this in postprocessing. It's just the unusual light amid the fog. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'd support cropping another third of the water in the foreground, but I support for the drama. I can easily imagine this as a cinematic shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • After your post-QIC advice, I experimented with a few different crops. One of the things I like about this image is the circular[ish] patch of light that illuminates the water as well as what's above water. For me, it contributes to the drama/cinematic feel. As I see it, that circle extends to near the bottom of the frame in the current crop. I didn't like the way a more severe crop cut into that shape. If it were otherwise I would surely agree with you from a composition point of view. Not sure if I'm explaining that well, or if I'm helping or hurting by explaining, but there it is. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  22:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I see it and get your point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose regretfully. Nicely taken and great atmosphere, but IMHO, it is too hazy for me to support. Sorry. --Nikhil B (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I object to haziness in photos sometimes, but if the haziness is the entire point of the photo, it's hard for me to relate to rejecting it based on haze. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting, dramatic shot. Dark part in combo with enlighted part is well made, wanted to say crop but no, its better like this. --Mile (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I was also thinking "crop" at first but at full size, the dark waves in the foreground are scary enough to keep. It's the kind of seascape I'm always grateful I don't have to be out in. Taking advantage of a natural "vignetting" also shows that you can see motifs appearing and quickly decide to take the shot, capturing the moment. --cart-Talk 09:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Moderate support per Ikan and cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Moderate support per others. But I do wish the ship appeared larger in the photo. PumpkinSky talk 19:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks very dramatic and scary. -- Pofka (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Two thirds of empty water, a big ship, and fog. I'm not sensitive here. Too much manierism. I suppose it would be politiphotographically correct to support...--Jebulon (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)...And I'm not sure vignetting is natural.--Jebulon (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I have to take issue with this. I don't mind if you oppose because it doesn't strike you as a FP or if it seems too melodramatic (I would agree re: the latter, except that's why I like it), but it sounds like you're accusing me of lying and/or misrepresenting re: vignetting. There was no vignetting added. Any tone adjustments were done to the entire image. The only exception was a minor adjustment to the ship itself (and not its surroundings). If it helps to clarify, you can see another example from shortly after here: File:Ship in the SF Bay fog (40413).jpg, in which the effect is still visible on the left but not so much the right. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Bonn, Hotel -Marriot- -- 2017 -- 2142 (bw).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 15:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 15:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 15:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The clouds are a bit disturbing but I feel something different. --Laitche (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just too uninteresting subject. Simply hate such block style, emotionally dead buildings. -- Pofka (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. --Karelj (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see them as emotionally dead buildings. This is a good example of modern art in architecture done in B&W. Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Chemical Challenger (ship, 2015) Sète cf01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2017 at 06:02:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created and uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As always I love dark stormy clouds, but here I just find the left and right crops unsettling (too tight on the right and too many distractions on the left). -- King of ♠ 06:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose oversaturated --Mile (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it more natural. --Mile (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support If this photo had been made by someone else than Christian, I would have yelled "oversaturated" but I know he isn't prone to such exaggerations. When a cloudbank comes or departs over the sea, you can get some pretty extreme light effects. Most of the time they are very difficult to catch in a photo so well done. --cart-Talk 08:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks you Ivar, I felt very lucky of this light, I came out of my job and the sky was clear, the time that I come to home, take my camera and go near the harbour, and the sun was hidden. I was terribly disappointed, and I was going to return at home but the weather has been generous, and the sun just lit some parts of the harbour with intermittent causing a dramatic effect with this contrast. Thank you cart, but you maybe right, while I always try to obtain a good visual effect I sometimes go a bit far when processing, is it too much? Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) I think that for the sake of the photo and for those not used to extreme harbor lights, you could turn it down a bit. It will not harm the photo. Sometimes I have to do a bit of desaturating of original photos when photographing sea, sky and clouds here since no one would believe me otherwise. ;-) --cart-Talk 11:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Still wow-y. :) --cart-Talk 11:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --You don`t get light situations like this very often. This is an excellent shot.--Ermell (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Talk to Kong of Lazers 22:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Carter. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Nikhil B (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support wow. --El Grafo (talk) 11:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support love the contrast — Rhododendrites talk |  23:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Powerful contrast! -- Pofka (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - As a thumbnail, I didn't really get it, but this is very well done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --fedaro (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Wow, has a 3-D feel to it. Atsme 📞 23:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing light! --Laitche (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot, Christian -- Thennicke (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--cart-Talk 14:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport


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:Rhododendron In Munnar.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 16:51:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Seven Saints (Седмочисленици, Св Наум).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 15:07:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Macedonia
  •   Info Seven Saints who honored in several southeast European Orthodox Churches as the creators and distributors of the Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabet. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is chroma noise in the upper part. Also, please add fresco category.--Peulle (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Peulle its handheld, ISO 1600. Frescos added.--Mile (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question I came across similar paintings in Cappadocia and I can't really compare, but I'm wondering if this shouldn't be a bit more saturated - Benh (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Peulle,Benh check again, true, its is more saturated, i had too much red/blue inside, and put offset and gamma. I have catalogue beside, and now is more comparable. They even put more, but again, its about camerman who made it, i dont like too much saturated...more to be real. This one in St Naum all are very out-of-saturation. Can you show me that one you saw ? 7 saints is very rare, and Greeks dont have it, more Slavic people. --Mile (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not doubting the value of the photo. Just questioning the saturation. Here is what I saw in Cappadocia [2]. I left default setting (just tweaked the WB). - Benh (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Ebenthal Gurnitz Propstei und Pfarrkirche Sankt Martin 06032015 0283.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 14:37:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Life around jungle.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 11:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Pallab kabir, uploaded by Pallabkabir, nominated by Masum-al-Hasan -- Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great mood, high quality. --Yann (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition, but the image is really unsharp --Shishir 15:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Even on 24 MPx (author left full size) is sharp enough. But composition, color gradience make this shot very original. --Mile (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 16:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm with Shishir on this one.--Peulle (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Statue of Liberty, by Anthony DELANOIX 2015-06-20 (Unsplash).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 09:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Anthony Delanoix, uploaded by , nominated by Yann (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The light is a bit flat, but the composition and sharpness are good.--Peulle (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition. -- Pofka (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Flat light, strange WB (too warm), and it looks cut off at the bottom. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support nice mood -- Wolf im Wald 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Curonian Spit NP 05-2017 img17 aerial view at Epha Dune.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2017 at 09:14:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Bow of MS Stena Danica crossing Kattegat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 22:51:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Probably, but I can't change the lens on my camera.   --cart-Talk 09:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You can if you buy a time machine, go back in time and do it. ;-D --Peulle (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Even that won't work since I don't own a DSLR. (I thought that everyone knew about my crappy cameras by now.)   --cart-Talk 13:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Add-up lens ? I had it on Canon A590. Dont worry, Peulle, its not Titanic, next time. --Mile (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me as well. -- Pofka (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I've looked at the image again and I don't know if it's the memory of my navy days or what, but there's definitely something about this image that speaks to me. I just don't see many images like this one.--Peulle (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Пронурок (Cinclus cinclus) недалеко від гнізда.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 19:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
  •   Info created by Alexkrol - uploaded by Alexkrol - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Great pose and nice composition, but my feeling is that not enough of the bird is sharp for this photo to reach the level of other FP bird photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Color space:Uncalibrated. --Mile (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Ikan says; and 1/100 sec not fast enough for a moving bird. Charles (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Close, but not quite sharp enough.--Peulle (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan and Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Agios Minas bay Chalkida Greece.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 09:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Island of Euboea, clouds, as seen from the bay of Agios Minas, in Chalkida, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sky covers about 2/3 of the picture, the rest is usual holiday picture with unnatural colors (why is it so dark in sunlight?!). I'm sorry, but I don't think it is special in any way. Good for holiday pictures album, but not for the featured picture candidates nomination. -- Pofka (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Pofka. --Karelj (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Usual comment here now, it is the current fashion in FPC. Pfff.--Jebulon (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Well, sorry to say, but per Pofka... - Benh (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I like the sky and I don't think this is just a typical tourist snap shot at all. And the darkness is presumably logically explained by cloud cover. But oddly enough (or maybe not), it's the positioning of the buoys in the picture frame that's ruining the form for me. It's possible that cloning them out would solve the problem for me, but I hardly ever make such recommendations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per everyone else. Daniel Case (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:SolarEclipseCorvallis Aug 21 2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 08:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info created by Tuanna2010 - uploaded by Tuanna2010 - nominated by Jcpag2010 -- Jcpag2010 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jcpag2010 (talk) 08:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If I, taking a photo of an eclipse for the first time ever, about a thousand kilometers to the east, could get it sharper, all of these could have been sharper too. Daniel Case (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose pretty cool collection, but I'm a bit disturbed by the square edges ot the individual shots. It just looks like a very quick editing job. As for the individual images, I suppose they could be nominated separately or as a set nomination but I don't know if the quality is high enough to pass.--Peulle (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Image:Secondary School in France.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2017 at 01:21:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Secondary School in France.jpg
  •   Info created by Prismo345 - uploaded by Prismo345 - nominated by Prismo345 --   | Prismo (disc. · contr.) 01:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --   | Prismo (disc. · contr.) 01:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment A very nice architecture photo but before starting to asses this there are a few things that needs fixing. The image needs to be properly categorized (see Commons:Categories) this goes for the faulty FP category above as well. It would also help to know exactly where the photo was taken, you do that by adding the Template:Location. The description is a little too brief and could be added to. The file is also a bit small for such a photo, so it looks like it has been downsized a bit too much, please upload the original file. --cart-Talk 09:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Less than 2 megapixels resolution (1600x1200). I think it should be speedy declined as it violates the nominating requirements? -- Pofka (talk) 14:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Since this is a new user who is not aware of all our rules, I think it's only fair to give them a sporting chance to correct things per my comment above before booting them out. How are we going to get new good photographers if we are rude to them on sight? 'Pinging' Prismo345 to make sure they get this message. --cart-Talk 15:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It's a shame there are those valid issues W.carter brought up because on composition alone, I like this! Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that the composition is quite good, but doesn't this need to be FPXed? I suppose it wouldn't do any harm to wait 24 hours, though, if that's what people want to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that this is the original image, there is no other size, so that is the one that remains to vote.   | Prismo (disc. · contr.) 22:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Per above comment and this discussion, I think it's safe to FPX this if you want to. --cart-Talk 22:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is smaller than the minimum size of 2 megapixels. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Косарі в дельті ДУнаю.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 17:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
  •   Info created by Ryzhkov Sergey - uploaded by Ryzhkov Sergey - nominated by Anntinomy -- Anntinomy (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I particularly like the fact that an interaction between birds is shown. This is the Google Translate into English of the Ukrainian file description: "The young bird is still trying to ask the parents for food. Kosar (Platalea leucorodia) is a rare bird that breaks within the Danube Biosphere Reserve." What does "breaks" mean? Rests during its yearly migration? Or does it simply mean that's where the birds live? Commons search is once again hanging for me, so that I can't see what other FPs we might have of this bird. Why does Commons search hang so much? Do all of you have that same problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
not breaks but nesting :)--Anntinomy (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support About perfect. --A.Savin 20:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Could be sharper, compo good. @Ikan Kekek it means "is nesting in borders of Danubian biosphere"...slowly also. They have some problems. --Mile (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Alexander. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 08:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Partially a bit noisy, but very special and interessting. --Hockei (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Mile, not perfect, but the birds are in focus and the poses are good. Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful! - Benh (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit noisy, but that's not enough to hold this back. Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  05:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The front bird is blurred, but the great composition makes it excusable. Charles (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Saint Naum Monastery (манастир Свети Наум код Охрида, Македонија).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 15:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Macedonia
  •   Info Saint Naum Monastery (Sveti Naum) near Ohrid, Republic of Macedonia. Built in 9th cent. My shot. --Mile (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mile (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- --Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 17:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Fantastic. Could you please add "9th-century" to the file description? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Added. St. Naum was pupil of St Cyrill and Metodius. What i didnt write, there is a legend...Naum grave is inside, and if you put your ear on the grave, you can hear his heart beating. I did hear it. Some poeple know this, tourists not so much. Wondering if this should go into description. Its not mentioned on Wiki. --Mile (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 23:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Could be sharper for the resolution but OK. -- King of ♠ 00:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Zhangzhugang (talk) 03:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per King Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I stayed there six weeks ago! The monastery is a hotel now. Charles (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Its monastery, some accept visitors. --Mile (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, it could be s little sharper but it's not enough for me to oppose it. Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  05:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Herbaceous plants of choram county.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 14:43:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Litang Ge'nyen 2014.09.16 09-11-25.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 11:51:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Khadzhibey left forecastle 2017 G1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 05:01:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Left forecastle of the passenger vessel catamaran "Khadzhibey".
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition, excellent colors, and at least something different (difficult)...--Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support PumpkinSky talk 23:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Now this is how to take a cart-esque FP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid it isn't making me go wow. Rope is perhaps too random in organisation. -- Colin (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose All the good element that I love are there, but the lines, angle and light don't add up to a wow or FP composition for me, sorry. --cart-Talk 08:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. --Karelj (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Chaotic rope, which is probably the main subject here. -- Pofka (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 17:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Rusty chain in fishing boat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2017 at 04:42:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice colors but being a stationary object, the quality/sharpness bar for rusty chains on FP is much higher than this, IMO. At least some focus stacking should be done. --cart-Talk 07:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Castelazesque, therefore good in conception and idea, but achievement could be sharper, even without focus stacking.--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart with an assist from Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose cart & Jebulon arguments. -- Pofka (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Wiesbaden BW 2017-04-24 20-51-36.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 15:56:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The "Kurhaus" is the main object, so I put the fountain close to the border to guide the viewers look from the first over the second fountain to the building. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Which is also the reason why the nearest foreground is a bit unsharp. I think your point of view is valid, so I'll give you mild   Support, though I wish there were some space to the right of the fountain, and the lack of it creates tension in the composition, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:SP KazanskyCathedral 2370.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 15:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Cathedral of Our Lady of Kazan in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Created and uploaded by Ludvig14 - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 15:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 15:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 16:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 16:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Неплохо, but you could correct bordes (PD). --Mile (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question The extreme left and right sides look like they have a black line on top and the rest of the semicircular wings also seem to have a border on top. Is that really there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support ----Ermell (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 04:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Great photo, but far too much tone mapping. Obvious halos at thumbnail size. -- Thennicke (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --KSK (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Thennicke--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't think the halos are that bad. Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Thennicke --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Thennicke -- Wolf im Wald 16:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 17:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:2015.07.04.-06-Eilenburg Ost--Gemeiner Schwefelporling.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 14:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Polyporaceae
  •   Info New produced. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A QI of a fungus on a tree, I don't doubt, but not special enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The direction of light is a bit boring for me.--Peulle (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel, --cart-Talk 17:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I guess I agree with you all, but the fungus is very interesting. Maybe from a different angle or in different light it might be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Hockei (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Blue eye, by Amanda Dalbjörn, 2017 (Unsplash).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 13:40:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Amanda Dalbjörn, uploaded by , nominated by Yann (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but too noisy. I don't understand what there is a reason for this. --Hockei (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, somewhat per Hockei. The composition doesn't really make sense to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise aside, the 3/4 window reflection in the eye is not the best way to light such a subject. Actually being outside would have been better. I also suspect the blue in the eye is oversaturated. --cart-Talk 07:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • It is not necessary to be so patronising. She is not the only one of us with a bit to learn. Charles (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Not my intention at all, apologies if you think it sounded that way. Sentence is removed. --cart-Talk 16:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose First, the unsharp brow is distracting; second, a composition like this makes me think of sci-fi paperback covers where we see that the eye belongs to an android, a cyborg or something like that. Since it apparently doesn't here, I feel let down by the payoff I didn't get (Basically, when you do this there should be something interesting about the eye itself to draw us in). Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good composition and light, but there's too much noise.--Peulle (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel Case. -- Pofka (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't think the comments here are really meaningful, but well... Yann (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:2013.06.04.-24-Kaefertaler Wald-Mannheim-Kleiner Sonnenroeschen-Blaeuling.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 11:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a good example of a backlit butterfly, because the hairs (along with the feet and head) are so clear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a high quality photo technically, but I cannot see why a backlit photo like this should be FP. It just doesn't appeal to me. Charles (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharing Charlesjsharp's opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Anntinomy (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Charles. -- Pofka (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:2014I7686 - Львів.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2017 at 08:14:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Молния на Каменной могиле.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 22:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created by Anatoliy Volkov - uploaded by Anatoliy Volkov - nominated by -- Anntinomy (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Anntinomy (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Atsme 📞 22:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose on grounds of technical quality. The image is grainy and suffers from extensive long exposure noise, as well as some color fringing. I also feel it's oversaturated. Lightning photos are quite common so there's no compelling reason to overlook the IQ issues here. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unnatural post-processing; tint is +40 in the magenta direction. But I disagree with Juliancolton and think IQ is good enough for a night landscape. -- King of ♠ 05:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stars are drawn here. --Mile (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Manipulated unrealistically, per King. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King, and I don't think those a drawn stars, looks more like some artifacts since they are on the ground-part too. --cart-Talk 17:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice but unnatural. -- Pofka (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Panoramic view of MontrealEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 18:27:00 (UTC)

  •   Info Set of panoramic views of the city of Montreal from Mount Royal, Quebec, Canada. All by me, Poco2 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm aware that not long ago ArildV successfully nominated a similar set but I'd still like to give it a try. I enjoyed the lighting of both and that lightnings gives the night image a special touch, I believe. Poco2 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 18:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. I hope that lightning didn't get close to you. Was it really a good idea to stay on the top of Mont Royal and shoot in that situation? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    Ikan, I assure you that I've been in dangerous situations to get the shot I was aiming, but this one was none of them. The lightning is further than you could think. Indeed, it didn't rain where I was standing. Poco2 20:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - WOW!! Add points for creativity, and prearranging a lightening bolt!! Atsme 📞 22:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Superb. PumpkinSky talk 01:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 05:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Check all lights in night shot, all lights are problematic, like you moved camera, was this same lens like that monument !? --Mile (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose big wow, but the daylight pic had not the best lighting conditions and per Mile: almost all lights (even the lighting) on the night shot have artifacts. --Ivar (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Impressing.--Ermell (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As someone else who was at Wikimania, I can say that you couldn't be too choosy on that day about the light (Or, why this year's Wikimania group photo had to be taken a day later, in a less desirable location) Daniel Case (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Somehow these photos make the city look alive and that can't be said about many panoramas. --cart-Talk 07:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Zhangzhugang (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pofka (talk) 14:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Lévis city, Québec 07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2017 at 15:23:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.