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:LUT SEM Calcium sulphate crystals 600x.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 21:57:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Calcium sulphate crystal grown on a ceramic filter plate surface

File:Lillehammer 2016 - Women hockey - Sweden vs Switzerland 31.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 20:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saskia Maurer of Switzerland during the Sweden - Switzerland game at the YOG2016
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a picture of Saskia Maurer, goalie of the Women's U18 Switzerland ice hockey team, taken during the first match of the swiss, against Sweden. The Swiss team has finished 3rd overall in the competition.-- Pleclown (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good QI but lacking wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

Saskia Maurer of Switzerland during the Sweden - Switzerland game at the YOG2016

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I like this photo, so I took the liberty of making some changes to what I think could be improved noise, colors and some small imperfections. --The Photographer (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is an improvement, but I still am not wowed. Definitely a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Ceiling in San Peter in Vincula (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 19:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ceiling in San Peter in Vincula (Rome)

File:Sea Monster.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 15:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Natrix natrix in Tallinn, Estonia
  • Well, first I though it might be the lens, but the "Bigma" used here is actually quite well-regarded not only for its sharpness. There are some halos along some of the sharper borders (e.g. tongue, chin), which suggests comparably strong processing. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that seems like a good example of destructive processing --The Photographer (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, I find all that mucilaginous scum or whatever to be really unattractive, and also, very little of this photo is in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose regretfully per other opposers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Blending, central composition doesnt work here. But shot is rare and in good mood...we might try to bring it out.--Mile (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I really want to support this, as for some reason I absolutely love all that … Slime? … as well as the "pose". But it looks over-sharpened in full size, and that's still noticeable at smaller sizes. I also somewhat agree with Mile concerning the composition, but that alone wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At first, this photo made me smile a bit, so I couldn't resist to examine it. In fact, the quality at full resolution is poor, but above all I see serious issues regarding the postprocess. Look: the end resolution is 5269x3500 px = 18.44 mpix. According to EXIF, the picture was taken with a Nikon D300S. The sensor of this camera has a maximum resolution of 4288x2848 px = 12.3 mpix... I cannot imagine this kind of photo to be any kind of stitched. Digital zooming / upscaled? Sorry, it is absolutely a no-go for me, even far from QI. Not to rescue. Strong oppose. Sorry! --A.Savin 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Flamencos andinos (Phoenicoparrus andinus), Laguna Hedionda, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 61.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 13:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Andean flamingos (Phoenicoparrus andinus) in the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Andean flamingos (Phoenicoparrus andinus) in the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia. All by me, Poco2 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although, why if the main subjects are the animals, is there too background? Ezarateesteban 14:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    Ezarate: Because I wasn't looking for a closeup of the flamingos but rather wanted to put them in context and couldn't avoid including that nice snowed mountain in the background in the composition. Poco2 16:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Ezarate: not a background: a very successfull composition.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A composition with so many horizontal lines is not well served by a vertical orientation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild/moderate Symbol support vote.svg Support - At full size, large parts of the background are more unsharp than necessary for compositional reasons, but it's really not bad: Everything is visible, and the photo looks good at full-page size. Full-page size is pretty small, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I should say, I don't disagree with Daniel's remark, despite my mild/moderate support vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral excellent quality and featurable scene - I can't really come to terms with the rather tight, vertically oriented composition though. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Daniel Case. Natural scene in almost 1:2 size doesnt work (in this case), upper half is defocused, so i would cut to bottom half into pano mode, with that grass on right corner away. But i have feeling you did some shots of flamingos also. --Mile (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Guys, I have uploaded tons of panoramas of this area, you seem to like them, but are portrait versions that bad? I find this composition balanced and pleasant to my eyes with enough elements to guide my eyes around. The other day I also got the feedback from Colin that for a picture with lots of horizontal lines a portrait version the best of all is. Poco2 12:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the reason I liked the portrait File:Mina de Chuquicamata, Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 121.JPG was that portrait emphasised the depth/height and the the crop at the sides left it feeling endless rather than the nomination image which fully encapsulated the whole quarry. It was more abstract, which also appeals to me. But that image might also have worked in square or landscape format provided the lines ran to the edge of the frame and appeared endless -- you just didn't have an identical image that was in those formats. I haven't looked at this one in detail yet, but I see the grass on the bottom right as distracting, and the asymmetrical crop of the mountain is unusual but possibly interesting. If I crop the grass out, it's much more pleasing. I'll have a look again tonight. -- Colin (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Hong Kong Railway Route Map ring.pdfEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 09:20:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Concentric MTR diagram
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sameboat - uploaded by Sameboat - nominated by Sameboat -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Hong Kong MTR (metro system) diagram in distorted concentric ring pattern. PDF version is created to better represents author's intention of the source SVG due to technical limitations of rendering SVG on Wikimedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your nomination. I'm guessing you want us to judge the shapes of the map as art? If so, I'm sorry, but I don't find it compelling enough to feature. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can’t see anything special in that either. Most route maps of public transport are simplified and schematised in a similar way. – (I once came across a map of hiking routes in the Lake District designed like the London Underground map. Nice idea!) --Kreuzschnabel 10:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hight EV, however, try make it SVG. PDF is for documents --The Photographer (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Per the Photographer. I will not consider on the merits unless it is nominated in a more customary image format. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Verde78 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:2016.05.08.-07-Viernheimer Heide-Viernheim--Feld-Sandlaufkaefer.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2016 at 19:26:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Green tiger beetle - Cicindela campestris

File:Gorilla gorilla (Savage & Wyman, 1847) in Hanover Zoo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 19:37:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gorilla gorilla in Hanover Zoo.

*Symbol support vote.svg Support Simpatic, good composition. --Mile (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good photo, and I feel really sad for the gorilla. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Holy cow, I just realized this photo was taken in 1847! I was voting to support it based on it being a new photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the naming of the species is from 1847 and is done by Savage & Wyman. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clearing that up. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Also i did so. Then its not stated correct Michael Gäbler. There is different format for pictures. --Mile (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Suppose it needs different description then, why is naming there and year. Disruptive. Gorilla gorilla would be good. If author wanna proceed, then say nomenclature made by that and that in that year. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for description. --Mile (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
This is the scientific source: Domain: Eukaryota • Regnum: Animalia • Phylum: Chordata • Subphylum: Vertebrata • Infraphylum: Gnathostomata • Superclassis: Tetrapoda • Classis: Mammalia • Subclassis: Theria • Infraclassis: Eutheria • Ordo: Primates • Subordo: Haplorrhini • Infraordo: Simiiformes • Parvordo: Catarrhini • Superfamilia: Hominoidea • Familia: Hominidae • Genus: Gorilla • Species: Gorilla gorilla (Savage & Wyman, 1847). See: [1]. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article the "Western lowland gorilla" is "Gorilla gorilla gorilla", not just "Gorilla gorilla" and the "(Savage & Wyman, 1847)" suffix is simply ridiculous. It would be like me taking a picture of a Vallium tablet and writing "Vallium (Sternbach 1963)". Please don't overcomplicate things with data only a taxonomist would understand or appreciate. -- Colin (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Michael Gäbler You have to made that clear in description, in Deutch perhaps. Now i doubt when i read, and sure some other will think its picture. --Mile (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBruce1eetalk 04:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It’s certainly a nice pic but that’s not what FP is about. And I don’t see much featurable here, the image size barely above 2 mpix and the face of the gorilla not even quite sharp at that small resolution. FP threshold for mammals used to be a bit higher. --Kreuzschnabel 10:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Far too small for a photo taken at a zoo in May 2016, and not ultra sharp at that. Sorry but zoo photos have no excuse for being anything less than exceptional technically. -- Colin (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. INeverCry 04:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. ~ Moheen (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Verde78 (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Anna Palm - A game of L'hombre in Brøndum's Hotel - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 18:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A game of L'hombre in Brøndum's Hotel by Swedish artist Anna Palm de Rosa

File:Bea Kyle Standing Fire Engine and Pickle 1924, edited.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 13:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
A 1924 photo. Edited from File:Bea Kyle Standing Fire Engine and Pickle 1924.jpg -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

City of London skyline from London City HallEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 22:04:42 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Colin, User:Diliff and User:Slaunger. Uploaded and nominated by me. On Open House London 2008, Diliff took a photo from the roof balcony of City Hall of the City of London. Seven years later on Open House London 2015 I took an updated picture. Slaunger had the bright idea to align the images using PTGui. After some minor tweaking of his PTGui project and a little sky-filling in Photoshop, we have here two images that are identical apart from seven years of change. I hope you enjoy flipping between these two images to see which buildings have been added and which demolished. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, Colin, for elborating on my half-baked project! I wish Wikimedia had the possibility to animate the transition between the two. It would be more powerfull and you would better see also the differences in tide level, direction of light and slight difference in season (colors of leaves). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both images are high resolution (39MP), permitting a detailed examination of seven years in the development of the City of London. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Idea, I will make a juxtapose on tool labs to see this picture and stimulate before>after pictures --The Photographer (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 22:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very innovative nomination. I'm surprised they're exactly the same resolution! --King of ♠ 01:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ~ Moheen (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very impressive --DXR (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Idea --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support - Fantastic historical document! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good idea. By the presence of cranes it seems that there shall be even more towers soon. --Ximonic (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the whole area still very much under development, with more towers planned. See also this version of the image which shows much more to the left. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fantastic idea, perfectly executed. Great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love how you managed to captured one of the same boat! :D -- KTC (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Indeed a good idea, and well tweaked for near-perfect alignment of the two images. And hey, I get a FP for free? ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Not so sure about this Colin, 2 almost id pictures going into before-after Feautered nominee does not follow any FP procedure, eventually is doing against. This is definately Valued Image procedure where years could and should be taken in aspect. If not, we can make panorama for every time new building is made, hence FP category might have plenty of almost same stuff - how would some user choose them when he click the best one, the Feaueterd one ? --Mile (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    I think overall, Commons FPC is more willing to accept high-quality duplicates than English Wikipedia FPC, where EV is important and an old image can lose its EV to a newer image by virtue of being replaced in the article in which it was used. --King of ♠ 17:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great idea and excellent pictures. --Code (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support !! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Roquebrun and Orb River cf02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 21:54:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roquebrun and Orb River, Europe, France
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm somehow feeling a lack of wow. I don't know whether it's the light of the overcast day, perhaps the crops that cut off buildings on the right and left, maybe a lack of sufficient contrast? This is certainly a very good picture, but I'm not feeling this as an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a very nice and interesting landscape. Good work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 19:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ~ Moheen (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose per Ikan. Color seems more subdued than what the overcast day would account for. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Agii Apostoli church back agora athens.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 12:59:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I feel like the right crop is too close, but I don't know what's a bit further to the right. To me, this is a very good Quality Image, but not a FP, although if the right crop could be extended further right, I'd look at the result and might very well reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose per Ikan. This is the reverse of those images where I have suggested tighter crops ... here, I think it would benefit from a wider view and some more context. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks Tomer T. I think it is good for FP, and the crop is enough IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. INeverCry 04:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Turmfalke maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 12:49:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Jaipur 03-2016 05 Amber Fort.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 12:41:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jaipur, India: detail of fortification of the Amber Fort (aka Amer Fort)

File:Santa Maria dell'Orto (Rome) - Abside.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 07:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Santa Maria dell'Orto (Rome) - Abside.jpg
  • I think they are part of the balustrades,yo can see also here,thanx --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I thought there might be restoration going on in the church. I find them distracting, but since the photo is beautiful otherwise, I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support, anyway. That said, they would be a legitimate reason for others to oppose the photo as not being in their opinion one of the finest on the site because of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong glare in the corners, and the contrast/colours of the gilded portions are simply unbelievable (and I don't mean that in a good way). -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • unbelievable ..... who cares about your opinion? Not me --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Livio my friend, you could disagree, but you should do care about all opinions here, if, not, why nominating ? So do I, especially about Colin's opinion, he is wise enough in reviewing. So do I.--Jebulon (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • yes Jebulon infact I do not care HIS opinion and vote or negative or not vote. It is ridiculous that there are two or three people here that vote to my photos only and only negatively and then with ridiculous and colorful expressions! People like you or Daniel,Hubertl, Martin, nevercry,Ikan etc. are serious people who voted or positively or negatively ..... other only negatively and it seems ridiculous --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the glare in the upper right corner. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
It helps, but I'm not sure it can be completely eliminated. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Thaddeus M. Fowler - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1902.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 23:18:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pittsburgh in 1902

File:2016 Minolta Dynax 404si.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 17:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Minolta Dynax 404si
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not FP level. The felt (?) surface, while seamless, is really distracting like noise. Unless the surface/background has some attractive qualities of its own, I think it needs to make itself invisible to the viewer. The camera isn't clean. I appreciate this is not brand new, but we have other vintage camera photos that are much better prepared than this. It's tedious, but makes a big difference. The lighting appears to be available light rather than arranged softened flash/strobe lighting. The consequence is we see your room in the lens reflection, rather than simple shapes of light that highlight the lens curvature. The body lacks the 3D form that arranged lighting would achieve. The colour temperature is perhaps a little warm. And the "face" of the camera is the "Minolta" logo which is in shadow. Compare this and this. I suggest also to angle the camera a little more and cropping more on all sides apart from the left. I suspect it won't be easy to make the plastic metal-effect body look as cool as a metal body or superior plastics. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The camera itself looks a bit noisy at full size. I might feel a bit nitpicky, except that the photos Colin links are persuasively better than this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. INeverCry 01:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. Not well served by the dark background. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Torreparedones - 11.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 14:32:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The basilica in Torreparedones Archaeological Park (Spain)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info These are the remains of the basilica, located in the forum of the ancient Roman village of Torreparedones. Created by ElBute - uploaded by ElBute - nominated by ElBute -- ElBute (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ElBute (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don’t see much special in the photograph, though the motif as such is certainly interesting. Would be better taken from a more elevated point to keep the near pillars from covering the far ones. The cloudy and partly blown sky doesnt add much aesthetic value I’m afraid. Maybe a VI but not featurable for me. --Kreuzschnabel 21:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The different sizes and shapes of the columns are fun to move my eyes around, and the shape of the cumulonimbus clouds is also helpful. I'd like to see this in more sunlight, too, but that could be another nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 01:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Victoria amazonica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 06:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Flower from the Giant Amazon Water Lilly (Victoria amazonica) at the Adelaide Botanic Garden."

Alt 1Edit

Victoria amazonica ks01.jpg
Original photo by Bilby, edited by Kreuzschnabel

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also pinging Ikan Kekek. --Pine 14:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm always amazed when I see one of these. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the flower, but the green thing/shape in the corner does nothing for the composition. INeverCry 01:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That’s a leaf of the same plant. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for composition as above. Certainly nice but not that special to be featured IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Cascade du Bief de la ruine en avril.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 01:38:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pmau - uploaded by Pmau - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Pretty waterfall, but doesn't really wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice place too but unfortunate light, leaving the main object in shadow while the bright light on the right makes the shadow look even duller. Then, it really lacks sharpness! As for composition, I’d prefer to see the top end of the waterfall as well. --Kreuzschnabel 04:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not bad, but I feel we'd all be better off with a separate nomination of the proposed alt, below. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

Cascade du Bief de la ruine en mai - img 37966.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This version was taken in May. Sharper than the other image, with more uniform lighting and nice green trees.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Milder Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I feel like this is a significantly better photo, but some of the crops bother me, especially the way the trees are cropped on top. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not an alternative !--Jebulon (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon – this has to be nominated separately. Only minor edits on the same shot can be put up as an alternative. --Kreuzschnabel 08:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Procedural oppose per above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Île Saint-Martin, Gruissan cf09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 16:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Island Saint-Martin, Gruissan, France
✓ Done @King of Hearts: thank you, in all cases this is an improvement IMO Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I agree that this is a pretty big improvement. (By the way, <<en tout cas>> in English is "in any case".) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thanks... :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Oye stave church.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 16:24:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Øye stave church in Øye, Vang, Norway.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Øye stave church in Øye, Vang, Norway. A small but beautiful and very charming stave church. Picture taken in a sunny day, as opposed to the rest of the pictures in the category which were taken under a cloudy sky. Created by ElBute - uploaded by ElBute - nominated by ElBute -- ElBute (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ElBute (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one, quality is good. --Mile (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is beautiful and very restful to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Code (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful image, but such large blown areas in the clouds are a no-go for me here, even more so in an HDR. Compo a bit too centered for me, I’d prefer to pan the camera slightly to the right. Would have prevented the cow on the left from being beheaded, too. --Kreuzschnabel 04:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not an HDR. I'm aware it seems as if it is, but it's not. I share your preferences towards non centered photos, but I like this one centered. The cow will be cloned out this evening. --ElBute (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Photographer (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The beheaded cow has been cloned out. Highlights in the clouds have also been reduced. --ElBute (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • ElBute was there someone sitting on left bench before ? --Mile (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not exactly. It was a flare I had to remove. --ElBute (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. I think the dark areas were brightened. So there is (minor) noise. --XRay talk 05:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it a lot, but, in this case, the good things about it cannot overcome the blown highlights in the clouds noted by Kreuzschnabel. If they could be cleaned up or toned down I'd probably support. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Highlights were reduced in the second upload on 20th May. Anyway, they were not blown up in the first version of the image (the histogram said) and they're not in this second version. I don't think it's a flaw in the image but a distinguishing feature. --ElBute (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk),

File:Bomen hebben het moeilijk in het winderige klimaat op de voormalige zeebodem. Locatie, Oostvaardersplassen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 15:56:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Damaged trees.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Trees are struggling in the windy weather at the former seabed. Location, Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - I wasn't thinking that much of this as a thumbnail. I like it better at full-page size, but I think I'd like it a lot better if it weren't cropped so close on top. I don't suppose it's possible to change that, is it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Answer: 18mm focal length. I come to the recording does not further deteriorate.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand, but I guess the answer is that it's not possible. I'm not quite wowed by this picture, but I really like your appreciation of nature. I guess I have to admit I'm not so sure this is really a FP, but I'm maybe 60% sure, and that's reflected in my mild support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the light and the colours very much. It's different from what we usually see here. --Code (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Code --A.Savin 00:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Code --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate YNP1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 01:58:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden Gate Canyon in Yellowstone National Park
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Golden Gate Canyon In Yellowstone National Park, with a storm developing over Mammoth Hot Springs in the distance, all by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Breathtaking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great picture compositionally but unfortunately the noise reduction and the saturation of the sky both seem to be far overdone. Maybe fixable. --Code (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The composition with the motif is great but the overall technical quality seems to be questionable. The saturated sky looks a bit unnatural considering the lightning of the cliff on the left side. It is also evident that there is chromatic aberration on some trees, while the mountain on the right leaves me with the impression that it might have been painted. I think most of these issues can be fixed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A version taken straight from the RAW file can be seen here File:Golden Gate YNP2.jpg, with only exposure and contrast adjusted, white-balanced for daylight but no saturation or vibrance adjustments. NR is less and there is a touch less saturation that reflects the native RAW image (both saturation and vibrance are at 0): the image is a few years old and camera and lens are retired due to noise and a tendency to CA. For color, note that this is at 2200m altitude so there is little or no haze, and that Yellowstone and Golden Gate Canyon are so named for a reason, the rhyolite is startlingly yellow in places. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The other version has still to much noise reduction applied. I suppose you upload a version without any noise reduction at all. I don't think noise reduction is really necessary in this case. --Code (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Anfiteatro, Valle de la Luna, San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 149.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2016 at 19:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of "the Amfitheater", a rock formation in Valle de la Luna (in Spanish "Moon Valley"), Atacama Desert, Chile.

File:Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Stories (1922), Frontispiece.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2016 at 11:26:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Frontispiece to Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Stories
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Maud and Miska Petersham - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 16:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice. I grew up reading these books. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you may have overdone the contrast and saturation boost compared to the original scan (which I presume is your own scan). The fine detail in the dot pattens on bold colours is smudged. Neither the scanned TIFF nor this JPG have any colour profile defined, which I think is essential for art reproductions. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Colin: Remember that I own the original: I adjusted it to match the original, after telling the scanner not to make any automatic adjustments. The scan doesn't accurately reflect the orignal; I told it not to try to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • The dots making up the colour pattern seem to have merged or become less distinct particular where the colour is strong. I agree your scan isn't a reference in itself but then neither is your monitor unless you have a pro-grade calibrated monitor, calibrated scanner, a colour checker chart, and reference lighting levels for viewing your monitor image / book. Clearly as amateurs we can't afford all that. Have you considered asking WMF for a grant to purchase a display calibrator and chart -- considering the amount of scanning/restoration you do. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
        • From my experience, scans often can make things look more distinct, even when they aren't in the original. Also, of course, some of the restoration involved fixing printing errors, which may, in a few cases, include bits where the dots were more visible because one of the colours was left out. For example, the green balloons at the far right, more-or-less vertically centered had some issues with that in the original, and the third flag from the left (counting the half-flag on the far left) had the reds a bit splattered. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sage pollen.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2016 at 01:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scanning electron microscopy image of sage pollen
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - That's certainly a valid point of view, although I think the information on scale is helpful. But it's up to Judyta Dulnik. Judyta, if you're reading, do you have an opinion about this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Well, as Daniel Case said all the information can be put in description, but this is how I've been taking pictures with SEM I'm working on and, to be honest, it haven't crossed my mind to put it elsewhere. To me it doesn't disrupt the picture, but I might be a little biased. --Judyta Dulnik (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Judyta, thanks for your response. I don't think it disrupts the picture, although I don't know what "3kv" or "WD(...)" mean, so you might explain anything non-obvious in your file description. Also, if you'd like to vote on whether to feature your photo, feel free. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In any case, I think it's a good thing to include a scale bar. I'd crop a little bit at the bottom, though, to have the text vertically centred. And yes, I'd appreciate an explanation of "3kv" etc. in the file description as well. --El Grafo (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I've myself only worked a little with TEMs and not SEMs and even that was really long time ago. So I'm not much of a specialist on that. But kV should refer to the amount of energy used. Electron microscopes have an electron emitter (called cathode or filament), that is electrically heated, so that it would bounce off electrons (they replace photons, that are captured by "normal" cameras). For a bigger magnification you need more energy. This WD11mm should refer to the fact that Working Distance is 11 mm. It is sort like what a focal length is in optical systems. I have no idea what that SS40 is.
For me this black line with that info is so common, that I kinda like it to be present. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I've just added some description, very brief though, since it would be too much explaining to people who are not familiar with this subject. I believe these details might be interesting for those working with SEM and they simply don't need more desciption.--Judyta Dulnik (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Niels Gade by Georg Weinhold.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 22:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

portrait of Niels Wilhelm Gade

File:Emperor dragonfly (Anax imperator), Le Courégant, Brittany, France (19651212169).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 20:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Emperor dragonfly (Anax imperator)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Frank Vassen - uploaded by Josve05a - nominated by Moon rabbit 365 -- Moon rabbit 365 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Moon rabbit 365 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 01:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This is one of the better insect heads I've seen on this page for some time, and the head is better than in any of the FPs in its category. However, other parts of the dragonfly are not as focused. Of the existing FPs in category Anax imperator, this one is by far the clearest in depicting the entire dorsal side of the dragonfly. This is the 2nd-clearest in depicting the insect. This one is the least clear but shows the dragonfly emerging from the water over the leaf of a water plant, a special moment. This photo is certainly a great capture. Should it be featured? Maybe, primarily for the head and thorax. For now at least, I'm not going to make up my mind, but perhaps these links will be of use to others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose abdomen is blurred. Charles (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Charles, but really I don't feel the wow. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Consumer Reports - Zojirushi coffeemaker.tifEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 16:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zojirushi coffeemaker
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Consumer Reports - uploaded by User:Bluerasberry - nominated by Bluerasberry -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I work for Consumer Reports, which is an organization that does product testing on household consumer products. My organization puts photos like these in its magazine and website along with reviews of the products. I am curious about Commons' reviewers opinions of these kinds of photos. I will share whatever comments or critiques anyone has with the photography department here. -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have some complaints, please see notes. --Hubertl 16:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tilt --The Photographer (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Moderate Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Hubertl's complaints and The Photographer's note. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aside from the notes Hubertl and The Photographer made, the background not exposed to white. When used in print or on the web the subject will be placed on a pure white background. This can be achieved in studio, with arrangement of flash, appropriately distanced white background, and careful choice of surface (plus a little help from Photoshop) or it can be done crudely by simply cutting the subject out from whatever background it has. The latter is fine for small web use or thumbnails in a magazine like Consumer Reports. But I think at FP we are more looking for the sort of careful product shot one might expect the manufacturer to take for a full-page magazine advert (e.g. this on-black image). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, plus it looks very noisy, like sharpened noise. Unacceptable on a studio shot, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 06:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing any significant noise, certainly not "very noisy", and nothing to worry about for any publication usage. The problem really, in terms of professional publication, is that this is sort of unfinished -- it requires significant Photoshopping to be usable. However, Bluerasberry, Commons lacks good quality photos of utilitarian objects like these. Most amateur shots are a lot lot worse. So if Consumer Reports is willing to donate part of its archive of photos then that would be great. I would think that especially for models no longer in the shops, the commercial value of any photo would be extremely low, and it might as well get used via Commons than sit on some hard disc somewhere. -- Colin (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hm. I see sharpened noise speckles all over the frame. On the plastic parts, I’d have accounted this to the surface design, but it’s on the shiny metal parts as well. --Kreuzschnabel 16:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Well you can see all sorts of things with a magnifying glass. Look closely enough and you'll see the RGB dots on your LCD :-). I really think this is at the level of irrelevance, and noting that it is a negative point ("very noisy") is I think harmful as it just makes (a) professional photographers despair that we are just pixel-peeping and (b) nominators want to downsize to avoid such issues. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

Zojirushi coffeemaker

The Photographer Thanks for the fix. You made it a nicer and more useful picture, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this improvement makes the image much more useful, with distracting imperfections. However, the grey background and the very utilitarian design of this particular coffee-maker mean I don't think this is good enough for FP. It is sad we have so few domestic appliances at FP, and I mention for comparison my own File:Electric steam iron.jpg which is better on-white and a more attractive product. Alternatively is the on-black advertising product shot such as File:Sony A77 II.jpg. I suggest that a colourful (bright red?) and more retro design could have the visual appeal for FP, if carefully shot and lit. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I might not understand the purpose of featured pictures. Is it more desirable to depict something as it is commonly experienced, or is this more a system for identifying what is artistically extraordinary? I choose this coffeemaker because it seemed as neutral and mundane as a coffeemaker of this sort might be.
I saw that iron photo years ago when you submitted it and used it as an argument for Consumer Reports to share more product photos. Thanks for sharing - I might not have gotten these photos were it not for that iron. I only now got permission for this one and a few others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Or simply this object is used --The Photographer (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The Photographer It is a new product. All products here go to the photo studio before being tested. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I respect Colin's points but think this clean picture of a consumer product is fine to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan; I am satisfied with this photo and find it as striking as anything you'd find in a magazine. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Per Bluerasberry's question about what criteria are used to judge whether a picture should be featured: We had a discussion about that recently. See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 18#Change the number of votes to feature a picture?, starting with my comment below the "-1" votes for the "New proposal". But that doesn't cover everything. Your first reference should be Commons:Image guidelines: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a 'wow factor' and may or may not have been created by a Commons user. Given sufficient 'wow factor' and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." You'll see a series of technical criteria and a few compositional guidelines, but if they are met, the next question is the "wow factor", and that's not subject to objective measurements. You'll see from the discussion I linked that different reviewers give greater or lesser weight to encyclopedic and general educational value. Some of us think that artistic value is paramount in whether a photo has wow, while others aren't even willing to vote for a photo they think is of no educational value. I won't be surprised if this photo isn't featured because the motif doesn't wow many people, and that's a perfectly reasonable point of view. I like the streamlined character of the design and the clarity of the photo, so I'm fine with featuring it, but the point is very arguable. However, there have certainly been examples of otherwise not very interesting motifs that have been photographed so well that the photo has been featured; for example, XRay's photo of Weeze Airport looks set to be the next, but it certainly won't be the first. Another example is that we featured a photo of the Parkhotel in Pörtschach by Johann Jaritz even though some of us consider it an eyesore. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The nomination might have succeeded if this alt were proposed rather than one with clear flaws. Personally, I think our Commons:Image guidelines are weak and too long. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see people's points of view if a discussion is taken up at the talk page for the guidelines on possible changes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Lüdinghausen, Naturschutzgebiet Borkenberge -- 2016 -- 2278.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 05:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Step in a staircase in nature reserve “Borkenberge”, Lüdinghausen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 05:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 05:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - I enjoy moving my eye around this composition and it's interesting to look at, so to me that's enough of a reason to support it. And I'd like to salute you in these two nominations for trying something different! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It's just "no try no chance". I like the image and it's other than others. It's another view. --XRay talk 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • {o} A pity ! This is exactly one of my kinds of FP, but it is unsharp at full size !--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't see great problems with sharpness. I've tried to improve the sharpness (and uploaded the new image). --XRay talk 04:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beyond any sharpness issue, I just don't see this as special/impressive enough for FP. INeverCry 19:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per INC, sorry. If only the flowers would form a regular hexagon or something like that. --Kreuzschnabel 08:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Jebulon's oppose, except I don't see any sharpness issues either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I changed my mind, sharpness is acceptable. Excellent subject.--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 10:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sumida desupre.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 03:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sumida ward, Tokyo, Japan
Ikan Kekek What do you mean by, "there's nothing special about the crops"? I want to see what you are seeing but do not follow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm saying that I don't see convincing reasons for where the margins of the picture frame are. Does that make sense? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per M. Kekek. KennyOMG (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is pretty good, but I don't like the smog or the areas that are in shadow. Overall I'm just not wowed. INeverCry 19:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I sure do like it. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A nice cityscape but too colorless, smog and white buildings notwithstanding. Seems overexposed to me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: Did you mean for this to be a support? It sounds like an oppose rationale. INeverCry 17:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Oops! Thanks ... you were correct. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Dome of Cappella Paolina in Santa Maria Maggiore (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2016 at 08:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome of Cappella Paolina in Santa Maria Maggiore (Rome)
  • Besides that the colors are just perfect, and if you want to be credible put the photos that prove the contrary, is very curious (I wonder why) that Benh (and some others) come out on my nominations always and just see to vote in opposition, I wonder why... --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thought you could query Google yourself but here you go. - Benh
With all due respect, Benh, but I kicked the FPX now. You have had your vote and you used it. Use FXP, when something is obviously and unrepairable against the guidelines. --Hubertl 17:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is not necessary - and against the guidelines too - to be dismissive. To anyone here! --Hubertl 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
      • He goes paranoiac, makes allegations on my voting pattern (my commentary is justified and with a neutral tone) and I'm dismissive... Hmmm. Double check before giving a lesson. Back to photo, yes, the off balance is quite a huge mistake IMO. Colour accuracy is also a criteria, but it seems under rated because it's not as obvious as, say, sharpness to spot out. U r right on the FPX, mine wasn't valid, as other support votes were provided. My mistake. - Benh (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
        • No Benh, the paranoid is someone who connects only to give negative votes to the same people .....need to be balanced in life. You're not far. You gave me a positive vote? Show me that please. Returning to the photo, this makes you feel you not me. The colors are OK --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


Ta bort utvald-status ifrån bilderEdit

Efterhand kan standarden för utvalda bilder ändras. Bilder som tidigare var tillräckligt bra, kanske inte längre anses vara det. Här listas bilder som du tycker inte längre förtjänar att vara utvalda bilder. Då behövs 2/3 majoritet (och minst 5 röster) som håller med om att ta bort utvald-statusen ifrån bilden. Om inte 2/3 av de röstande håller med om att ta bort den, så är bilden fortsatt utvald. Här röstar man med {{Keep}} (bilden förtjänar att kvarstå som utvald) or {{Delist}} (bilden förtjänar inte att kvarstå som utvald). När du nominerar en bild här, ta med länken till den ursprungliga utvald-bild-nomineringen (den finns under Länkar på bildens beskrivningssida. Använd den här länken för att lägga till en borttags-kandidat.

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:LUT SEM Calcium sulphate crystals 600x.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 21:57:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Calcium sulphate crystal grown on a ceramic filter plate surface

File:Lillehammer 2016 - Women hockey - Sweden vs Switzerland 31.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 20:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saskia Maurer of Switzerland during the Sweden - Switzerland game at the YOG2016
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a picture of Saskia Maurer, goalie of the Women's U18 Switzerland ice hockey team, taken during the first match of the swiss, against Sweden. The Swiss team has finished 3rd overall in the competition.-- Pleclown (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good QI but lacking wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

Saskia Maurer of Switzerland during the Sweden - Switzerland game at the YOG2016

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I like this photo, so I took the liberty of making some changes to what I think could be improved noise, colors and some small imperfections. --The Photographer (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is an improvement, but I still am not wowed. Definitely a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Ceiling in San Peter in Vincula (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 19:24:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ceiling in San Peter in Vincula (Rome)

File:Sea Monster.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 15:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Natrix natrix in Tallinn, Estonia
  • Well, first I though it might be the lens, but the "Bigma" used here is actually quite well-regarded not only for its sharpness. There are some halos along some of the sharper borders (e.g. tongue, chin), which suggests comparably strong processing. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that seems like a good example of destructive processing --The Photographer (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, I find all that mucilaginous scum or whatever to be really unattractive, and also, very little of this photo is in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose regretfully per other opposers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Blending, central composition doesnt work here. But shot is rare and in good mood...we might try to bring it out.--Mile (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I really want to support this, as for some reason I absolutely love all that … Slime? … as well as the "pose". But it looks over-sharpened in full size, and that's still noticeable at smaller sizes. I also somewhat agree with Mile concerning the composition, but that alone wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At first, this photo made me smile a bit, so I couldn't resist to examine it. In fact, the quality at full resolution is poor, but above all I see serious issues regarding the postprocess. Look: the end resolution is 5269x3500 px = 18.44 mpix. According to EXIF, the picture was taken with a Nikon D300S. The sensor of this camera has a maximum resolution of 4288x2848 px = 12.3 mpix... I cannot imagine this kind of photo to be any kind of stitched. Digital zooming / upscaled? Sorry, it is absolutely a no-go for me, even far from QI. Not to rescue. Strong oppose. Sorry! --A.Savin 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Flamencos andinos (Phoenicoparrus andinus), Laguna Hedionda, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 61.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 13:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Andean flamingos (Phoenicoparrus andinus) in the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Andean flamingos (Phoenicoparrus andinus) in the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia. All by me, Poco2 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although, why if the main subjects are the animals, is there too background? Ezarateesteban 14:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    Ezarate: Because I wasn't looking for a closeup of the flamingos but rather wanted to put them in context and couldn't avoid including that nice snowed mountain in the background in the composition. Poco2 16:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Ezarate: not a background: a very successfull composition.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A composition with so many horizontal lines is not well served by a vertical orientation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild/moderate Symbol support vote.svg Support - At full size, large parts of the background are more unsharp than necessary for compositional reasons, but it's really not bad: Everything is visible, and the photo looks good at full-page size. Full-page size is pretty small, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I should say, I don't disagree with Daniel's remark, despite my mild/moderate support vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral excellent quality and featurable scene - I can't really come to terms with the rather tight, vertically oriented composition though. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Daniel Case. Natural scene in almost 1:2 size doesnt work (in this case), upper half is defocused, so i would cut to bottom half into pano mode, with that grass on right corner away. But i have feeling you did some shots of flamingos also. --Mile (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Guys, I have uploaded tons of panoramas of this area, you seem to like them, but are portrait versions that bad? I find this composition balanced and pleasant to my eyes with enough elements to guide my eyes around. The other day I also got the feedback from Colin that for a picture with lots of horizontal lines a portrait version the best of all is. Poco2 12:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the reason I liked the portrait File:Mina de Chuquicamata, Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 121.JPG was that portrait emphasised the depth/height and the the crop at the sides left it feeling endless rather than the nomination image which fully encapsulated the whole quarry. It was more abstract, which also appeals to me. But that image might also have worked in square or landscape format provided the lines ran to the edge of the frame and appeared endless -- you just didn't have an identical image that was in those formats. I haven't looked at this one in detail yet, but I see the grass on the bottom right as distracting, and the asymmetrical crop of the mountain is unusual but possibly interesting. If I crop the grass out, it's much more pleasing. I'll have a look again tonight. -- Colin (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Hong Kong Railway Route Map ring.pdfEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 09:20:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Concentric MTR diagram
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sameboat - uploaded by Sameboat - nominated by Sameboat -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Hong Kong MTR (metro system) diagram in distorted concentric ring pattern. PDF version is created to better represents author's intention of the source SVG due to technical limitations of rendering SVG on Wikimedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 09:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your nomination. I'm guessing you want us to judge the shapes of the map as art? If so, I'm sorry, but I don't find it compelling enough to feature. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can’t see anything special in that either. Most route maps of public transport are simplified and schematised in a similar way. – (I once came across a map of hiking routes in the Lake District designed like the London Underground map. Nice idea!) --Kreuzschnabel 10:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hight EV, however, try make it SVG. PDF is for documents --The Photographer (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Per the Photographer. I will not consider on the merits unless it is nominated in a more customary image format. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Verde78 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:2016.05.08.-07-Viernheimer Heide-Viernheim--Feld-Sandlaufkaefer.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2016 at 19:26:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Green tiger beetle - Cicindela campestris

File:Gorilla gorilla (Savage & Wyman, 1847) in Hanover Zoo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 19:37:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gorilla gorilla in Hanover Zoo.

*Symbol support vote.svg Support Simpatic, good composition. --Mile (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good photo, and I feel really sad for the gorilla. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Holy cow, I just realized this photo was taken in 1847! I was voting to support it based on it being a new photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the naming of the species is from 1847 and is done by Savage & Wyman. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clearing that up. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Also i did so. Then its not stated correct Michael Gäbler. There is different format for pictures. --Mile (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Suppose it needs different description then, why is naming there and year. Disruptive. Gorilla gorilla would be good. If author wanna proceed, then say nomenclature made by that and that in that year. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for description. --Mile (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
This is the scientific source: Domain: Eukaryota • Regnum: Animalia • Phylum: Chordata • Subphylum: Vertebrata • Infraphylum: Gnathostomata • Superclassis: Tetrapoda • Classis: Mammalia • Subclassis: Theria • Infraclassis: Eutheria • Ordo: Primates • Subordo: Haplorrhini • Infraordo: Simiiformes • Parvordo: Catarrhini • Superfamilia: Hominoidea • Familia: Hominidae • Genus: Gorilla • Species: Gorilla gorilla (Savage & Wyman, 1847). See: [2]. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article the "Western lowland gorilla" is "Gorilla gorilla gorilla", not just "Gorilla gorilla" and the "(Savage & Wyman, 1847)" suffix is simply ridiculous. It would be like me taking a picture of a Vallium tablet and writing "Vallium (Sternbach 1963)". Please don't overcomplicate things with data only a taxonomist would understand or appreciate. -- Colin (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Michael Gäbler You have to made that clear in description, in Deutch perhaps. Now i doubt when i read, and sure some other will think its picture. --Mile (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBruce1eetalk 04:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It’s certainly a nice pic but that’s not what FP is about. And I don’t see much featurable here, the image size barely above 2 mpix and the face of the gorilla not even quite sharp at that small resolution. FP threshold for mammals used to be a bit higher. --Kreuzschnabel 10:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Far too small for a photo taken at a zoo in May 2016, and not ultra sharp at that. Sorry but zoo photos have no excuse for being anything less than exceptional technically. -- Colin (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. INeverCry 04:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. ~ Moheen (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Verde78 (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Anna Palm - A game of L'hombre in Brøndum's Hotel - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 18:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A game of L'hombre in Brøndum's Hotel by Swedish artist Anna Palm de Rosa

File:Bea Kyle Standing Fire Engine and Pickle 1924, edited.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 13:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
A 1924 photo. Edited from File:Bea Kyle Standing Fire Engine and Pickle 1924.jpg -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

City of London skyline from London City HallEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 22:04:42 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Colin, User:Diliff and User:Slaunger. Uploaded and nominated by me. On Open House London 2008, Diliff took a photo from the roof balcony of City Hall of the City of London. Seven years later on Open House London 2015 I took an updated picture. Slaunger had the bright idea to align the images using PTGui. After some minor tweaking of his PTGui project and a little sky-filling in Photoshop, we have here two images that are identical apart from seven years of change. I hope you enjoy flipping between these two images to see which buildings have been added and which demolished. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, Colin, for elborating on my half-baked project! I wish Wikimedia had the possibility to animate the transition between the two. It would be more powerfull and you would better see also the differences in tide level, direction of light and slight difference in season (colors of leaves). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both images are high resolution (39MP), permitting a detailed examination of seven years in the development of the City of London. -- Colin (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Idea, I will make a juxtapose on tool labs to see this picture and stimulate before>after pictures --The Photographer (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 22:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very innovative nomination. I'm surprised they're exactly the same resolution! --King of ♠ 01:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ~ Moheen (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very impressive --DXR (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Idea --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support - Fantastic historical document! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good idea. By the presence of cranes it seems that there shall be even more towers soon. --Ximonic (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the whole area still very much under development, with more towers planned. See also this version of the image which shows much more to the left. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fantastic idea, perfectly executed. Great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love how you managed to captured one of the same boat! :D -- KTC (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Indeed a good idea, and well tweaked for near-perfect alignment of the two images. And hey, I get a FP for free? ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Not so sure about this Colin, 2 almost id pictures going into before-after Feautered nominee does not follow any FP procedure, eventually is doing against. This is definately Valued Image procedure where years could and should be taken in aspect. If not, we can make panorama for every time new building is made, hence FP category might have plenty of almost same stuff - how would some user choose them when he click the best one, the Feaueterd one ? --Mile (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    I think overall, Commons FPC is more willing to accept high-quality duplicates than English Wikipedia FPC, where EV is important and an old image can lose its EV to a newer image by virtue of being replaced in the article in which it was used. --King of ♠ 17:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great idea and excellent pictures. --Code (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support !! Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Roquebrun and Orb River cf02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 21:54:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roquebrun and Orb River, Europe, France
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm somehow feeling a lack of wow. I don't know whether it's the light of the overcast day, perhaps the crops that cut off buildings on the right and left, maybe a lack of sufficient contrast? This is certainly a very good picture, but I'm not feeling this as an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a very nice and interesting landscape. Good work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 19:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ~ Moheen (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose per Ikan. Color seems more subdued than what the overcast day would account for. Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Agii Apostoli church back agora athens.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 12:59:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I feel like the right crop is too close, but I don't know what's a bit further to the right. To me, this is a very good Quality Image, but not a FP, although if the right crop could be extended further right, I'd look at the result and might very well reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose per Ikan. This is the reverse of those images where I have suggested tighter crops ... here, I think it would benefit from a wider view and some more context. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks Tomer T. I think it is good for FP, and the crop is enough IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. INeverCry 04:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Turmfalke maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 12:49:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Jaipur 03-2016 05 Amber Fort.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 12:41:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jaipur, India: detail of fortification of the Amber Fort (aka Amer Fort)

File:Santa Maria dell'Orto (Rome) - Abside.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 May 2016 at 07:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Santa Maria dell'Orto (Rome) - Abside.jpg
  • I think they are part of the balustrades,yo can see also here,thanx --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I thought there might be restoration going on in the church. I find them distracting, but since the photo is beautiful otherwise, I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support, anyway. That said, they would be a legitimate reason for others to oppose the photo as not being in their opinion one of the finest on the site because of that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong glare in the corners, and the contrast/colours of the gilded portions are simply unbelievable (and I don't mean that in a good way). -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • unbelievable ..... who cares about your opinion? Not me --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Livio my friend, you could disagree, but you should do care about all opinions here, if, not, why nominating ? So do I, especially about Colin's opinion, he is wise enough in reviewing. So do I.--Jebulon (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • yes Jebulon infact I do not care HIS opinion and vote or negative or not vote. It is ridiculous that there are two or three people here that vote to my photos only and only negatively and then with ridiculous and colorful expressions! People like you or Daniel,Hubertl, Martin, nevercry,Ikan etc. are serious people who voted or positively or negatively ..... other only negatively and it seems ridiculous --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the glare in the upper right corner. Daniel Case (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
It helps, but I'm not sure it can be completely eliminated. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Thaddeus M. Fowler - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1902.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 23:18:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pittsburgh in 1902

File:2016 Minolta Dynax 404si.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 17:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Minolta Dynax 404si
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not FP level. The felt (?) surface, while seamless, is really distracting like noise. Unless the surface/background has some attractive qualities of its own, I think it needs to make itself invisible to the viewer. The camera isn't clean. I appreciate this is not brand new, but we have other vintage camera photos that are much better prepared than this. It's tedious, but makes a big difference. The lighting appears to be available light rather than arranged softened flash/strobe lighting. The consequence is we see your room in the lens reflection, rather than simple shapes of light that highlight the lens curvature. The body lacks the 3D form that arranged lighting would achieve. The colour temperature is perhaps a little warm. And the "face" of the camera is the "Minolta" logo which is in shadow. Compare this and this. I suggest also to angle the camera a little more and cropping more on all sides apart from the left. I suspect it won't be easy to make the plastic metal-effect body look as cool as a metal body or superior plastics. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The camera itself looks a bit noisy at full size. I might feel a bit nitpicky, except that the photos Colin links are persuasively better than this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. INeverCry 01:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. Not well served by the dark background. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Torreparedones - 11.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 14:32:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The basilica in Torreparedones Archaeological Park (Spain)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info These are the remains of the basilica, located in the forum of the ancient Roman village of Torreparedones. Created by ElBute - uploaded by ElBute - nominated by ElBute -- ElBute (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ElBute (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don’t see much special in the photograph, though the motif as such is certainly interesting. Would be better taken from a more elevated point to keep the near pillars from covering the far ones. The cloudy and partly blown sky doesnt add much aesthetic value I’m afraid. Maybe a VI but not featurable for me. --Kreuzschnabel 21:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The different sizes and shapes of the columns are fun to move my eyes around, and the shape of the cumulonimbus clouds is also helpful. I'd like to see this in more sunlight, too, but that could be another nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 01:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. ~ Moheen (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Victoria amazonica.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 06:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Flower from the Giant Amazon Water Lilly (Victoria amazonica) at the Adelaide Botanic Garden."

Alt 1Edit

Victoria amazonica ks01.jpg
Original photo by Bilby, edited by Kreuzschnabel

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also pinging Ikan Kekek. --Pine 14:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm always amazed when I see one of these. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the flower, but the green thing/shape in the corner does nothing for the composition. INeverCry 01:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That’s a leaf of the same plant. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for composition as above. Certainly nice but not that special to be featured IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Cascade du Bief de la ruine en avril.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 01:38:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pmau - uploaded by Pmau - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Pretty waterfall, but doesn't really wow me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice place too but unfortunate light, leaving the main object in shadow while the bright light on the right makes the shadow look even duller. Then, it really lacks sharpness! As for composition, I’d prefer to see the top end of the waterfall as well. --Kreuzschnabel 04:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not bad, but I feel we'd all be better off with a separate nomination of the proposed alt, below. Daniel Case (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

Cascade du Bief de la ruine en mai - img 37966.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This version was taken in May. Sharper than the other image, with more uniform lighting and nice green trees.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Milder Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I feel like this is a significantly better photo, but some of the crops bother me, especially the way the trees are cropped on top. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not an alternative !--Jebulon (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon – this has to be nominated separately. Only minor edits on the same shot can be put up as an alternative. --Kreuzschnabel 08:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Procedural oppose per above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination -- Thennicke (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Île Saint-Martin, Gruissan cf09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 16:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Island Saint-Martin, Gruissan, France
✓ Done @King of Hearts: thank you, in all cases this is an improvement IMO Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I agree that this is a pretty big improvement. (By the way, <<en tout cas>> in English is "in any case".) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thanks... :) Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Oye stave church.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 16:24:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Øye stave church in Øye, Vang, Norway.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Øye stave church in Øye, Vang, Norway. A small but beautiful and very charming stave church. Picture taken in a sunny day, as opposed to the rest of the pictures in the category which were taken under a cloudy sky. Created by ElBute - uploaded by ElBute - nominated by ElBute -- ElBute (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ElBute (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one, quality is good. --Mile (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 01:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is beautiful and very restful to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Code (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful image, but such large blown areas in the clouds are a no-go for me here, even more so in an HDR. Compo a bit too centered for me, I’d prefer to pan the camera slightly to the right. Would have prevented the cow on the left from being beheaded, too. --Kreuzschnabel 04:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not an HDR. I'm aware it seems as if it is, but it's not. I share your preferences towards non centered photos, but I like this one centered. The cow will be cloned out this evening. --ElBute (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Photographer (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The beheaded cow has been cloned out. Highlights in the clouds have also been reduced. --ElBute (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • ElBute was there someone sitting on left bench before ? --Mile (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Not exactly. It was a flare I had to remove. --ElBute (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. I think the dark areas were brightened. So there is (minor) noise. --XRay talk 05:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it a lot, but, in this case, the good things about it cannot overcome the blown highlights in the clouds noted by Kreuzschnabel. If they could be cleaned up or toned down I'd probably support. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Highlights were reduced in the second upload on 20th May. Anyway, they were not blown up in the first version of the image (the histogram said) and they're not in this second version. I don't think it's a flaw in the image but a distinguishing feature. --ElBute (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk),

File:Bomen hebben het moeilijk in het winderige klimaat op de voormalige zeebodem. Locatie, Oostvaardersplassen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 15:56:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Damaged trees.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Trees are struggling in the windy weather at the former seabed. Location, Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - I wasn't thinking that much of this as a thumbnail. I like it better at full-page size, but I think I'd like it a lot better if it weren't cropped so close on top. I don't suppose it's possible to change that, is it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Answer: 18mm focal length. I come to the recording does not further deteriorate.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't really understand, but I guess the answer is that it's not possible. I'm not quite wowed by this picture, but I really like your appreciation of nature. I guess I have to admit I'm not so sure this is really a FP, but I'm maybe 60% sure, and that's reflected in my mild support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the light and the colours very much. It's different from what we usually see here. --Code (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Code --A.Savin 00:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Code --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate YNP1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2016 at 01:58:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden Gate Canyon in Yellowstone National Park
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Golden Gate Canyon In Yellowstone National Park, with a storm developing over Mammoth Hot Springs in the distance, all by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Acroterion (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Breathtaking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great picture compositionally but unfortunately the noise reduction and the saturation of the sky both seem to be far overdone. Maybe fixable. --Code (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The composition with the motif is great but the overall technical quality seems to be questionable. The saturated sky looks a bit unnatural considering the lightning of the cliff on the left side. It is also evident that there is chromatic aberration on some trees, while the mountain on the right leaves me with the impression that it might have been painted. I think most of these issues can be fixed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A version taken straight from the RAW file can be seen here File:Golden Gate YNP2.jpg, with only exposure and contrast adjusted, white-balanced for daylight but no saturation or vibrance adjustments. NR is less and there is a touch less saturation that reflects the native RAW image (both saturation and vibrance are at 0): the image is a few years old and camera and lens are retired due to noise and a tendency to CA. For color, note that this is at 2200m altitude so there is little or no haze, and that Yellowstone and Golden Gate Canyon are so named for a reason, the rhyolite is startlingly yellow in places. Acroterion (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • The other version has still to much noise reduction applied. I suppose you upload a version without any noise reduction at all. I don't think noise reduction is really necessary in this case. --Code (talk) 04:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Anfiteatro, Valle de la Luna, San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 149.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2016 at 19:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of "the Amfitheater", a rock formation in Valle de la Luna (in Spanish "Moon Valley"), Atacama Desert, Chile.

File:Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Stories (1922), Frontispiece.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2016 at 11:26:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Frontispiece to Carl Sandburg's Rootabaga Stories
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Maud and Miska Petersham - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 16:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice. I grew up reading these books. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you may have overdone the contrast and saturation boost compared to the original scan (which I presume is your own scan). The fine detail in the dot pattens on bold colours is smudged. Neither the scanned TIFF nor this JPG have any colour profile defined, which I think is essential for art reproductions. -- Colin (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Colin: Remember that I own the original: I adjusted it to match the original, after telling the scanner not to make any automatic adjustments. The scan doesn't accurately reflect the orignal; I told it not to try to. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • The dots making up the colour pattern seem to have merged or become less distinct particular where the colour is strong. I agree your scan isn't a reference in itself but then neither is your monitor unless you have a pro-grade calibrated monitor, calibrated scanner, a colour checker chart, and reference lighting levels for viewing your monitor image / book. Clearly as amateurs we can't afford all that. Have you considered asking WMF for a grant to purchase a display calibrator and chart -- considering the amount of scanning/restoration you do. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
        • From my experience, scans often can make things look more distinct, even when they aren't in the original. Also, of course, some of the restoration involved fixing printing errors, which may, in a few cases, include bits where the dots were more visible because one of the colours was left out. For example, the green balloons at the far right, more-or-less vertically centered had some issues with that in the original, and the third flag from the left (counting the half-flag on the far left) had the reds a bit splattered. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sage pollen.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2016 at 01:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scanning electron microscopy image of sage pollen
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - That's certainly a valid point of view, although I think the information on scale is helpful. But it's up to Judyta Dulnik. Judyta, if you're reading, do you have an opinion about this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Well, as Daniel Case said all the information can be put in description, but this is how I've been taking pictures with SEM I'm working on and, to be honest, it haven't crossed my mind to put it elsewhere. To me it doesn't disrupt the picture, but I might be a little biased. --Judyta Dulnik (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Judyta, thanks for your response. I don't think it disrupts the picture, although I don't know what "3kv" or "WD(...)" mean, so you might explain anything non-obvious in your file description. Also, if you'd like to vote on whether to feature your photo, feel free. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In any case, I think it's a good thing to include a scale bar. I'd crop a little bit at the bottom, though, to have the text vertically centred. And yes, I'd appreciate an explanation of "3kv" etc. in the file description as well. --El Grafo (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I've myself only worked a little with TEMs and not SEMs and even that was really long time ago. So I'm not much of a specialist on that. But kV should refer to the amount of energy used. Electron microscopes have an electron emitter (called cathode or filament), that is electrically heated, so that it would bounce off electrons (they replace photons, that are captured by "normal" cameras). For a bigger magnification you need more energy. This WD11mm should refer to the fact that Working Distance is 11 mm. It is sort like what a focal length is in optical systems. I have no idea what that SS40 is.
For me this black line with that info is so common, that I kinda like it to be present. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I've just added some description, very brief though, since it would be too much explaining to people who are not familiar with this subject. I believe these details might be interesting for those working with SEM and they simply don't need more desciption.--Judyta Dulnik (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Niels Gade by Georg Weinhold.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 22:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

portrait of Niels Wilhelm Gade

File:Emperor dragonfly (Anax imperator), Le Courégant, Brittany, France (19651212169).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 20:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Emperor dragonfly (Anax imperator)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Frank Vassen - uploaded by Josve05a - nominated by Moon rabbit 365 -- Moon rabbit 365 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Moon rabbit 365 (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 01:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This is one of the better insect heads I've seen on this page for some time, and the head is better than in any of the FPs in its category. However, other parts of the dragonfly are not as focused. Of the existing FPs in category Anax imperator, this one is by far the clearest in depicting the entire dorsal side of the dragonfly. This is the 2nd-clearest in depicting the insect. This one is the least clear but shows the dragonfly emerging from the water over the leaf of a water plant, a special moment. This photo is certainly a great capture. Should it be featured? Maybe, primarily for the head and thorax. For now at least, I'm not going to make up my mind, but perhaps these links will be of use to others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose abdomen is blurred. Charles (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Charles, but really I don't feel the wow. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Consumer Reports - Zojirushi coffeemaker.tifEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 16:10:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zojirushi coffeemaker
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Consumer Reports - uploaded by User:Bluerasberry - nominated by Bluerasberry -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I work for Consumer Reports, which is an organization that does product testing on household consumer products. My organization puts photos like these in its magazine and website along with reviews of the products. I am curious about Commons' reviewers opinions of these kinds of photos. I will share whatever comments or critiques anyone has with the photography department here. -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have some complaints, please see notes. --Hubertl 16:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tilt --The Photographer (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Moderate Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Hubertl's complaints and The Photographer's note. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aside from the notes Hubertl and The Photographer made, the background not exposed to white. When used in print or on the web the subject will be placed on a pure white background. This can be achieved in studio, with arrangement of flash, appropriately distanced white background, and careful choice of surface (plus a little help from Photoshop) or it can be done crudely by simply cutting the subject out from whatever background it has. The latter is fine for small web use or thumbnails in a magazine like Consumer Reports. But I think at FP we are more looking for the sort of careful product shot one might expect the manufacturer to take for a full-page magazine advert (e.g. this on-black image). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, plus it looks very noisy, like sharpened noise. Unacceptable on a studio shot, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 06:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing any significant noise, certainly not "very noisy", and nothing to worry about for any publication usage. The problem really, in terms of professional publication, is that this is sort of unfinished -- it requires significant Photoshopping to be usable. However, Bluerasberry, Commons lacks good quality photos of utilitarian objects like these. Most amateur shots are a lot lot worse. So if Consumer Reports is willing to donate part of its archive of photos then that would be great. I would think that especially for models no longer in the shops, the commercial value of any photo would be extremely low, and it might as well get used via Commons than sit on some hard disc somewhere. -- Colin (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Hm. I see sharpened noise speckles all over the frame. On the plastic parts, I’d have accounted this to the surface design, but it’s on the shiny metal parts as well. --Kreuzschnabel 16:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Well you can see all sorts of things with a magnifying glass. Look closely enough and you'll see the RGB dots on your LCD :-). I really think this is at the level of irrelevance, and noting that it is a negative point ("very noisy") is I think harmful as it just makes (a) professional photographers despair that we are just pixel-peeping and (b) nominators want to downsize to avoid such issues. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

Zojirushi coffeemaker

The Photographer Thanks for the fix. You made it a nicer and more useful picture, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this improvement makes the image much more useful, with distracting imperfections. However, the grey background and the very utilitarian design of this particular coffee-maker mean I don't think this is good enough for FP. It is sad we have so few domestic appliances at FP, and I mention for comparison my own File:Electric steam iron.jpg which is better on-white and a more attractive product. Alternatively is the on-black advertising product shot such as File:Sony A77 II.jpg. I suggest that a colourful (bright red?) and more retro design could have the visual appeal for FP, if carefully shot and lit. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I might not understand the purpose of featured pictures. Is it more desirable to depict something as it is commonly experienced, or is this more a system for identifying what is artistically extraordinary? I choose this coffeemaker because it seemed as neutral and mundane as a coffeemaker of this sort might be.
I saw that iron photo years ago when you submitted it and used it as an argument for Consumer Reports to share more product photos. Thanks for sharing - I might not have gotten these photos were it not for that iron. I only now got permission for this one and a few others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Or simply this object is used --The Photographer (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The Photographer It is a new product. All products here go to the photo studio before being tested. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I respect Colin's points but think this clean picture of a consumer product is fine to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan; I am satisfied with this photo and find it as striking as anything you'd find in a magazine. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Per Bluerasberry's question about what criteria are used to judge whether a picture should be featured: We had a discussion about that recently. See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/Archive 18#Change the number of votes to feature a picture?, starting with my comment below the "-1" votes for the "New proposal". But that doesn't cover everything. Your first reference should be Commons:Image guidelines: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a 'wow factor' and may or may not have been created by a Commons user. Given sufficient 'wow factor' and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality." You'll see a series of technical criteria and a few compositional guidelines, but if they are met, the next question is the "wow factor", and that's not subject to objective measurements. You'll see from the discussion I linked that different reviewers give greater or lesser weight to encyclopedic and general educational value. Some of us think that artistic value is paramount in whether a photo has wow, while others aren't even willing to vote for a photo they think is of no educational value. I won't be surprised if this photo isn't featured because the motif doesn't wow many people, and that's a perfectly reasonable point of view. I like the streamlined character of the design and the clarity of the photo, so I'm fine with featuring it, but the point is very arguable. However, there have certainly been examples of otherwise not very interesting motifs that have been photographed so well that the photo has been featured; for example, XRay's photo of Weeze Airport looks set to be the next, but it certainly won't be the first. Another example is that we featured a photo of the Parkhotel in Pörtschach by Johann Jaritz even though some of us consider it an eyesore. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The nomination might have succeeded if this alt were proposed rather than one with clear flaws. Personally, I think our Commons:Image guidelines are weak and too long. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see people's points of view if a discussion is taken up at the talk page for the guidelines on possible changes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Lüdinghausen, Naturschutzgebiet Borkenberge -- 2016 -- 2278.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 05:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Step in a staircase in nature reserve “Borkenberge”, Lüdinghausen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 05:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 05:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - I enjoy moving my eye around this composition and it's interesting to look at, so to me that's enough of a reason to support it. And I'd like to salute you in these two nominations for trying something different! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It's just "no try no chance". I like the image and it's other than others. It's another view. --XRay talk 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • {o} A pity ! This is exactly one of my kinds of FP, but it is unsharp at full size !--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't see great problems with sharpness. I've tried to improve the sharpness (and uploaded the new image). --XRay talk 04:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beyond any sharpness issue, I just don't see this as special/impressive enough for FP. INeverCry 19:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per INC, sorry. If only the flowers would form a regular hexagon or something like that. --Kreuzschnabel 08:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Jebulon's oppose, except I don't see any sharpness issues either. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I changed my mind, sharpness is acceptable. Excellent subject.--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 10:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sumida desupre.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2016 at 03:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sumida ward, Tokyo, Japan
Ikan Kekek What do you mean by, "there's nothing special about the crops"? I want to see what you are seeing but do not follow. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm saying that I don't see convincing reasons for where the margins of the picture frame are. Does that make sense? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per M. Kekek. KennyOMG (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is pretty good, but I don't like the smog or the areas that are in shadow. Overall I'm just not wowed. INeverCry 19:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I sure do like it. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A nice cityscape but too colorless, smog and white buildings notwithstanding. Seems overexposed to me. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: Did you mean for this to be a support? It sounds like an oppose rationale. INeverCry 17:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Oops! Thanks ... you were correct. Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Dome of Cappella Paolina in Santa Maria Maggiore (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 May 2016 at 08:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dome of Cappella Paolina in Santa Maria Maggiore (Rome)
  • Besides that the colors are just perfect, and if you want to be credible put the photos that prove the contrary, is very curious (I wonder why) that Benh (and some others) come out on my nominations always and just see to vote in opposition, I wonder why... --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thought you could query Google yourself but here you go. - Benh
With all due respect, Benh, but I kicked the FPX now. You have had your vote and you used it. Use FXP, when something is obviously and unrepairable against the guidelines. --Hubertl 17:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is not necessary - and against the guidelines too - to be dismissive. To anyone here! --Hubertl 17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
      • He goes paranoiac, makes allegations on my voting pattern (my commentary is justified and with a neutral tone) and I'm dismissive... Hmmm. Double check before giving a lesson. Back to photo, yes, the off balance is quite a huge mistake IMO. Colour accuracy is also a criteria, but it seems under rated because it's not as obvious as, say, sharpness to spot out. U r right on the FPX, mine wasn't valid, as other support votes were provided. My mistake. - Benh (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
        • No Benh, the paranoid is someone who connects only to give negative votes to the same people .....need to be balanced in life. You're not far. You gave me a positive vote? Show me that please. Returning to the photo, this makes you feel you not me. The colors are OK --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Read in another language