Open main menu

Commons:Návrhy na nejlepší obrázky


Contents

Formální záležitostiEdit

NominaceEdit

Jestliže jste přesvědčeni, že některý obrázek nahraný na Commons má hodnotu, která by ho opravňovala k zařazení mezi nejlepší obrázky, potom ho prosím přidejte. Můžete navrhnout obrázek, jehož jste autorem, ale i obrázek od kohokoli jiného. Předtím, než obrázek nominujete, zkontrolujte, že je řádně popsán a opatřen správnou licencí.

1) zkopírujte název obrázku do tohoto pole, například: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Váš obrázek.jpg. Potom klikněte na tlačítko "vytvořit novou nominaci".

2) postupujte podle pokynů na stránce
3) ručně vložite odkaz na vytvořenou stránku nahoru na Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: klikněte zde, a přidejte následující řádek na začátek seznamu nominací: {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Váš obrázek.jpg}}

HlasováníEdit

Prosím hlasujte použitím příslušného slova ve vaší řeči či použitím šablon uvedených níže:

  • Pro - Yes, Sim, Ja, Oui, Sí, Kyllä, 支持, Ano...
  • Proti - No, Não, Nein, Non, Ei, 反对, Ne...

Alternativně můžete použít šablony {{Oppose}}(  Oppose) a {{Support}}(  Support). Své sympatie k obrázku můžete vyjádřit pomocí šablony {{I love}}(   Support) a svůj neutrální postoj pomocí šablony {{Neutral}}(  Neutral).

Zkuste přidat pár slov o tom, proč se vám obrázek líbí nebo nelíbí, obzvláště pokud hlasujete proti.

Pravidla pro výběr nejlepších obrázkůEdit

  • 14denní hlasovací období. Výsledek hlasování bude vyhodnocen 15. den po nominaci.
  • Jsou vítány i nominace od anonymních příspěvatelů.
  • Příspěvky do diskuse od anonymních příspěvatelů jsou vítány.
  • Hlasy anonymních přispěvatelů se nepočítají.
  • Nominace se nepočítá jako hlasování. Podpora musí být výslovně vyjádřena.
  • Mějte na paměti, že Wikimedia Commons má sloužit jako centrální úložiště svobodných obrázků, které mohou být využity všemi projekty Wikimedia, včetně možných budoucích projektů. Nejde pouze o sbírku obrázků pro wikipedii, navržené obrázky by tedy neměly být posuzovány z hlediska jejich vhodnosti pro tento projekt.

Navržený obrázek bude zařazen na seznam nejlepších obrázků, pokud splní následující podmínky:

  • Odpovídající licence (to je samozřejmé)
  • Nejméně 5 hlasů na jeho podporu
  • Poměr hlasů pro/proti přinejmenším 2:1 (dvoutřetinová většina, tj. přinejmenším 67 % hlasů pro)

Návod na zpracování starých nominací je na stránce Template talk:Featured pictures candidates#What to do after voting is finished.

Kandidáti na vyřazení ze seznamu nejlepších obrázkůEdit

Požadavky na nejlepší obrázky se postupně vyvíjejí. Můžeme dojít k závěru, že některé obrázky, které byly původně "dost dobré", už nevyhovují současným požadavkům.

Zde můžete uvést obrázky, které si podle vás už nezaslouží patřit mezi nejlepší obrázky. Pro vyřazení je třeba 2/3 většina hlasů a minimálně 5 hlasů pro vyřazení. V opačném případě obrázek zůstane zařazen mezi nejlepšími obrázky. Hlasujte pomocí šablon {{Keep}}   Keep (zasluhuje si i nadále být mezi nejlepšími obrázky) nebo {{Delist}}   Delist (měl by být ze seznamu vyřazen). Uveďte prosím odkaz na původní nominaci mezi nejlepší obrázky (ta je uvedena na stránce s popiskem obrázku). Jinak platí stejná pravidla jako při hlasování o kandidátech na nejlepší obrázky.

Pro návrh obrázku na vyřazení ze seznamu nejlepších obrázků prosím použijte následující šablonu, kde v řádku za předdefinovaný zápis, za dvojtečku doplňte název obrázku nominovaného k vyřazení:



Nová stránka návrhu na vyřazení by měla obsahovat:

  • Informace o původu obrázku (autor, kdo jej náhrál, případně odkud byl obrázek převzat).
  • Odkaz na záznam nominace / hlasování (je uveden na stránce obrázku).
  • Důvod návrhu vyřazení.

Po tomto je nutno ručně vložit odkaz nahoru na stránku Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal.

Obrázky navržené za nejlepší obrázkyEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Himmler besichtigt die Gefangenenlager in Russland. Heinrich Himmler inspects a prisoner of war camp in Russia, circa... - NARA - 540164.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 09:13:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Please remember this, it's not the first time you go over the limit. At the moment you try to have five going. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 09:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Sacramento, California. Harvey Akio Itano, 21, 1942 graduate from the University of California wher . . . - NARA - 537777.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 08:09:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

-- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 08:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

 
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Please remember this, it's not the first time you go over the limit. At the moment you try to have five going. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Coralliophila costularis 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 05:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Harmony of Life.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2019 at 05:27:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Primates_(Primates)
  •   Info created by Senthiaathavan - uploaded by Senthiaathavan - nominated by Eatcha -- Eatcha (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support and It's uploaded today just 10 minutes ago. WOW, benefit of patrolling latest file-- Eatcha (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm a bit torn here. The motif is great and so is the first impression. Upon taking a second glance though, I've noticed some technical issues such as sharpness and maybe also lighting. But since it's a rather large file one shouldn't be pixelpeeping too much, I guess. Both title and description should be changed/amended, however --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but per Martin, the text needs some work. The description should be changed right now to something more Wikipedia-like without the emotional speculations and as soon as the nom is closed, the title must be changed too. --Cart (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I have fixed some of this plus the categories. Please Eatcha, you have to check that the categories are in order and according to Commons:Categories standard before you nominate an image. If that page is too complicated, you can take a look at the "Cat lesson" I gave another user some time ago. --Cart (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support ~ Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 08:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support But please change the file name once the nomination is over. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Russian Fleet (1892) il. 12 Dvenadsat Apostolov - Restoration, cropped.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 22:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Stadler and Pattinot after Vasily Ignatius - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Looks really good, but I like the original, too. I take it, you're totally sure the differences between the original and this file are completely explained by yellowing and otherwise darkening that took place over time, but how sure are you of these brightness levels specifically? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I've compared it to the Gallica copy. The paper was quite yellowed, so it does appear that that was adding a lot of yellow to the inks. Levels are compromised between this and the Gallica copy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - OK, that's good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   $upport -- Eatcha (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Isurus oxyrinchus Machoire.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 21:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Saint Julian church in Cassagnes-Begonhes 12.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 21:31:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Stained glass
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent. If you can say anything more about the windows in your file description (e.g., when or roughly when they were made and installed), that would be great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   support 👍 -- Eatcha (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Ikan Kekek; informations added. Tournasol7 (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way too much contrast and processing resulting in an image with no subtlety and burnt-out. Also no wow -- we don't feature every stained glass window and this is quite a plain stained glass window. There are better even within this church. For example see File:Cassagnes_vitrail_1.JPG and compare to your File:Saint Julian church in Cassagnes-Begonhes 15.jpg. The former is only 1.3MP but is a hugely superior image. Such windows are better photographed on a dull-weather day, and please make only modest changes with those Lightroom sliders. An HDR technique is often required for best results with windows. I see here you've set Contrast +15; Highlights -66; Shadows -100; Whites +84; Blacks -82; Clarity +48. Those are ridiculous values and the effect is obvious. -- Colin (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:McClure Tunnel west.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2019 at 00:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Please remember this, it's not the first time you go over the limit. At the moment you try to have five going. Thank you, --Cart (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Vietnam War protestors at the March on the Pentagon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 19:44:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Eatcha, yes it is grainy. That is because it is taken with Photographic film and all such old photos look sort of like that. The Film grain is one of the properties of such images, I guess you are to young to know about things like this. :-) Anyway, the grain should not be "fixed". --Cart (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not very evocative for me as very few faces are shown.--Peulle (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Grain is acceptable given the era. I find the image an interesting piece of historical documentation that deserves a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   +1 it's really an important issue per List of the lengths of United States participation in wars (17.4 years) -- Eatcha (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a particularly interesting shot, not a particularly important moment by itself (if needed prob Nov 15, '69 should be singled out). -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle --Boothsift 21:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree others Seven Pandas (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality is pretty much what you can expect from this kind of shot. Being a documentary photograph of a public event, it was probably taken on regular 135 film. So it will have more pronounced grain than the studio portraits taken on medium or large format film that we usually get to see here. That being said, I'll have to agree with Peulle as well. --El Grafo (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Kruisbladige wolfsmelk (Euphorbia lathyris) (d.j.b.).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 18:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info created and uploaded by Dominicus Johannes Bergsma - nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 18:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bad bottom crop and overal unimaginative centered composition. Light is not special, background blur is too busy to me. – Lucas 07:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas, sorry. WB also seems a bit to cold. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality but I agree with Lucas and Uoaei1. Cmao20 (talk) 12:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Unfortunately, this did not go the way I expected. Sorry for the inconvenience--Boothsift 21:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Boothsift 22:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Río Tanana, Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-28, DD 175-178 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 17:55:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Looks like an excellent photo, but does the river really curve as shown? If not, please detail what kind of projection you used in your file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
    Ikan Kekek: It's a 180-degree panorama of cylindric projection. I have documented it along with the exact location Poco2 12:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Distortions at the edges are unavoidable to some extent. Great panorama overall. Cmao20 (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice wow here. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great view. Some blown parts, but unavoidable when pointing the camera at the sun. -- King of ♠ 23:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Volcán Miñiques, Chile, 2016-02-08, DD 52-55 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 17:55:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dode roek. Locatie. Natuurterrein De Famberhorst. 01-06-2019. (d.j.b). 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 17:28:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Eatcha: A bit of an overstatement  . You can count the fly here as practically dead as it is being eaten. This beetle appears to be mounted. File:Chicoreus orchidiflorus 01.JPG also depicts a dead animal. Sorry for ruining the fun --Boothsift 05:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why I didn't remembered those images that you mentioned, maybe I'm more concerned about the big ones. -- Eatcha (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha, Boothsift: We also have this one. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Podzemnik:@Eatcha: We should make a list/gallery of some sorts. --Boothsift 04:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Poor guy. You're sure he had a crash? Good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
*Answer: this Corvus frugilegus was probably killed by a power struggle within the colony.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 05:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support but check the WB, green seems to be oversaturated --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Answer: the light was very soft that afternoon. See also the other pictures of the bird.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Belgium 1835 40 Francs.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 13:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Castle in Narok (Norok), Silesia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 12:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The tree obstructs the building. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. And it's not just one tree. I find the placement of the trees annoying, and it's a nice stylized castle, so I want a clear look at it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others – Lucas 16:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann--Boothsift 17:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I quite like it, I think the building is visible enough, the colours are lovely and the angle seems ok. Cmao20 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Friends Towers, Munich, June 2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 09:13:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Eisvogel kingfisher.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2019 at 05:59:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:1909 Vanderbilt Cup, American roadster-restored.jpg. not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 23:20:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thanks Yann, now letters are removed and contrast improved Ezarateesteban 13:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - This photo is 110 years old, but I think the restoration is insufficient for FP. It's got all kinds of surface damage, plus the arbitrarily lighter strips on both sides. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I will try to finish the restoration, but it will take time. Yann (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
If you desire I'll upload the XCF that I am using to restore. Regards!!! Ezarateesteban 21:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ezarate: Yes, please. Yann (talk) 07:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 22:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Today, at night in Argentina I'll do it Ezarateesteban 10:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Boothsift 22:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Meissen Böttger 1935.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 22:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Yonge Street August 2017 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 08:50:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Night life on the famouse Yonge street in Toronto, Canada. I like the composition, the busy street and all the signs. This type of night photography requires some technical compromises to avoid blurred people and cars. No downsampling, but a crop. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support well done --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - We don't see photos of views down urban streets too often at FPC. I enjoy this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! I'm amazed you got it this sharp at 1/15 sec. --Cart (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Hmmmm pretty good quality considering the conditions. I feel like I'm there with other street walkers. Is it handhold by the way? --Podzemnik (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Ahem... I'm pretty sure most of the people in the photo are not streetwalkers. ;-) --Cart (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
OMG sorry for that. I meant people who're walking on the street you know! --Podzemnik (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I know, but they are called 'pedestrians'. Bet you won't forget that word now. :-) --Cart (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
It is handheld--ArildV (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 14:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 04:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The very left part is not illuminated and quite dark, thus this image looks inbalanced to me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not totally sharp but I wouldn't necessarily expect this one to be. Great to see someone submit an FPC candidate from Toronto which isn't a photo of the skyline with the CN Tower prominent. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Valentin de Boulogne - Soldiers Playing Cards and Dice (The Cheats).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 08:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Red-billed gull portrait, New Brighton, New Zealand 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 07:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:The sun and the moon in South New Brighton's beach, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 07:03:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Others
  •   Info Created, uploaded and nominated by me. After Cart's try to get a FP status for a photo with the sun and the moon in the same image (see this one and this one), this is my attempt. Same as the Cart's images, this photo was taken very close to the winter solstice (down here pretty much today). It's a beach with sand dunes in South New Brighton, Christchurch, New Zealand -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 07:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support and a very Happy Midsommarafton (today) from Sweden to you!   (FYI, summer solstice is bigger than Christmas up here.) I'm so glad I could inspire someone to have a go at this. Since you have so much nicer landscape down there, your photo is way better than mine. :) I actually did manage to get both celestial bodies in a single frame on the new moon right after that winter solstice, but the moon was so faint then you can't find it without an image note. --Cart (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Haha happy Midsommarafton to you too :) Yes, you definitely inspired me! I have to admit that it was tricky to get them both together. I figured that the best chance I have was on the beach where the sun rises up first and where I had enough free space to span 120 degrees panorama. Also, I wanted the landscape to be interesting but not much so the viewer wouldn't focus on it too much. By the way, Sweden has a very lovely landscape, too. I've been there twice. I always admired your wilderness. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
In short, my photos were the crash test dummies for this perfect one.   Btw, you made my day. :) --Cart (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Javan Kingfisher Asman GunungKelir.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2019 at 07:00:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created by Asman ap - uploaded by Asman ap - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's a good action photo that I'll consider, but I think the categorization is inadequate. I would think that the species for the bird and the frog are needed categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy and unsharp. A vertical frame would also be better -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile.--Peulle (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile--Boothsift 21:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others; background is also distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because It will have a hard time overcoming 5 opposes with the reasons mentioned in the votes--Boothsift 22:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Großer Wollschweber hinterm Elbdeich.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 19:15:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done sorry for the delay. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2019 - Nationalpark Jasmund - 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 19:07:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Кристаллы в высохшей капле Кока Колы.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 14:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  •   Info Crystals (mainly sugar) in a dried Coca Cola drop under a microscope. Polarization. Crossed polarizers.
  •   Info created by Alexander Klepnev - uploaded by Alexander Klepnev - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- JukoFF (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks very nice and I would like to be able to vote for it. However, ZoomViewer is not working and I can't open such a big file. Often a smaller version is provided on the file page of large files for situations like this. Example. --Cart (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thank you. I don't have enough memory to open the full file! However, the picture is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great! Yann (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question What's the scale of this? Yann (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fantastic! --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! Thanks Yann for the smaller version. :-) --Cart (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This badly needs a bit of rework to be good. With the black levels my monitor is able to differentiate, there is a lot of noise, unsigthly sensor patterns, false colors, posterization, and a good amount of dust and dirt, all visible in the shadows literally everwhere in the image, without any further enhancement by me and without cranking up monitor brightness. If your monitor can't show it, I suggest opening it in an image editor and rasing the shadows. I'm offering to do the processing to make this clean, but maybe Alexander Klepnev wants to do it himself. Regarding its resolution, viewing this at 100 % does not show detail but rather very mushy pixels that would get opposed immediately in other pictures, I would downscale at least by half and slightly sharpen to make it less bloated. – Lucas 18:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll have to take your word for this since I can't open the original file. Well, this seems to be one of the cases against very large files then. ;-) --Cart (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the author of the photo is a simple teacher at school. He conducts a special course for children on photography of images with a microscope, and alas, he will not finish the photo: ( JukoFF (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Thanks for the info. I've made the edit in the shadows and downscaled to 25 % size as I've found there wasn't more detail available beyond what are now approx. 23 MPx. Slight sharpening. I've updated on the original file page and switch to   Support now. – Lucas 22:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support interesting. --Pine (✉) 21:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 21:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting image Cmao20 (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Another image that is just waiting to be an album cover. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Madakaripura Waterfall - Indonesia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 10:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Snowmanstudios - uploaded by Snowmanstudios - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   \WOW :-) -- Eatcha (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Impressive view, yes, but I'm bothered not the whole waterfall is rendered sharp. I get the feeling the focus was set too close and my DoF calculator tells me the hyperfocal distance could have been used here. The sky is blown on some parts and there's lens flare on the extreme right. – Lucas 12:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would support if the lens flare is corrected. --Yann (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as it is right now. Necessary improvements: natural WB (currently by far too warm), fix lens flare, remove the plastic bottle at the very left bottom. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment thanks for your input, changed the WB, removed the bottle and the fences, the visible "lensflare" is from a water droplet on the GND-filter, but yes, looks far better without. @LucasBosch: you meant this "lensflare" on the left side, not on the right, correct? and your DoF calculator, I mean, I get the feeling whatever... --Snowmanstudios (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Much better now! --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I meant the lens flare on the right, I hope it is one. You might be able to change my and other's opinions (see below) about the distant out of focus parts if you cared to explain instead of quibbling about a DoF calculator. – Lucas 18:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm struggling with my vote so far, because the photo has something special - the wow - but it's super-unsharp on the upper left. I think I can tolerate the apparent little lens flare on the right, but is there any way you could improve the sharpness and definition on the upper left? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm mostly bothered by that gray-ish patch in the shadows up right. It looks exactly like what you get when you try to raise something from very dark areas where there is little or no info other than darkness. On the whole, the post-processing looks a bit shoddy. Granted it is a very difficult subject light-wise, but I'd welcome a more natural look. --Cart (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per the opposes, but I don't feel like opposing it right now. --Boothsift 21:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support With everyone talking about the unsharp bit, I was expecting it to be really obviously terrible, but it’s only a small part of the image and isn’t very distracting. Overall I like it a lot, notwithstanding some flaws. Cmao20 (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose For me, it's the distortion at upper left and the halo around the cliff edge, suggesting that it was overdarkened. Daniel Case (talk) 00:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Limbach Baggersee 7295069.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 06:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Ermell - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this nomination is a real stretch for FPC, because a lot of regulars here tend to object to photos that don't contain the entirety of a lake. Painters routinely make these kinds of crops, because the result is a wonderfully dynamic sky rhymed by a peaceful sandy and grassy near bank, interacting with the trees on the far side, with the water and reflections in the lake in between. Of course Ermell can speak for himself, but I think the fact that the clouds, even more than the lake, are cropped adds tension and dynamism that fits the type of weather Ermell was experiencing and wants us to experience at one remove. (Tangentially, I had a dilemma in terms of categories, because an excavation lake is not natural, but it sure looks natural, so I couldn't think of a better category. Mixed?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   + 1 -- Eatcha (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Is it just me (or the compo) or is the image tilted a bit? --Cart (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow for me. IMO the left side is hanging a bit to the right. A less strong zoom (with more photo at the left part and a bit at the right) could have given probably a more attractive composition. --Michielverbeek (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose The leading lines all lead towards the patch of trees on the right, which is placed a bit too far off to the side making the composition unbalanced IMO. -- King of ♠ 13:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unnatural WB and no wow for me, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - In what way would you suggest changing the WB? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Less yellow and more green --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for nominating Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Certainly, and thanks for uploading a new revision. We'll see how it does. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --Boothsift 21:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A subtle light, but it grows on you after a while. Painterly and elegant. Cmao20 (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have no problems with the WB or composition. It just isn't interesting with this sky and this level of brightness. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good quality, and no real reason to oppose, but it lacks something special. Yann (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination - Well, I did say this nomination was a stretch. No sense in dragging this out. Thanks to everyone who voted or commented. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Astern IMG 3343.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2019 at 06:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Fischer.H - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this is a superb flower closeup, one of the better ones I've seen lately. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   +1 -- Eatcha (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Vulphere 08:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The background is a bit noisy though. --Hockei (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Just weak   Support because of the boring central composition --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 21:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree, this is a lovely flower closeup. Cmao20 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Because of the cropped flowers Poco2 15:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Luigi Verardi after Dominico Ferri - Vincenzo Bellini - Théatre Royal Italien. Salle d'armes dans l'Opéra I Puritani.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 23:48:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Vibrant Sky.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 23:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Don Heffern II - uploaded by Don Heffern II - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Seems like a pretty snapshot, nothing else, and there are huge areas of inert pitch blackness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan and it has some very visible CAs – Lucas 07:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 08:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful sky but the silhouettes are not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others above --Boothsift 21:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose One that falls on the short side of my usual saying about sunset pictures here: it has to make us feel like we've never seen a sunset before. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Hortus Haren 18-05-2019. (actm.) 07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2019 at 16:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Answer: thank you for your response. The main bloom is approximately 2 to 3 weeks. The plant is on the red list and is therefore very rare.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that in the Wikipedia article. I mean how many centimeters the flower is in width and height, not how old the plant is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
The total height and width of the inflorescence is variable. and about 12 by 4 cm.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A very beautiful image, which deserves to be used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:反送中遊行 002.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 14:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Wongan4614 - uploaded by Wongan4614 - nominated by Wongan4614, A photo taking in 16 June, it showed the protest in Hong Kong at that day was flooded the streets outside Pacific Place -- Wongan4614 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wongan4614 (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- SH6188 (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A significant event, but the technical shortcomings of the photo are too many. There is heavy chromatic aberration all over the photo, it needs perspective correction, it is over-saturated/(or vibrance), there is chromatic noise in most places and somehow detail in the photo is not what you'd expect from such a camera. Please look at a few tips on post-processing on COM:PT. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart, no disrespect but for Asian people these got too much of a sun tan in the processing. – Lucas 16:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Vulphere 08:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Boothsift 21:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Regretfully per Cart, though it would be lovely to have an FP of this important event. Cmao20 (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. Might have worked with better processing and less distractions. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Farul vechi din Sulina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • I agree. Once a day has passed after the other one was FPXed, this nomination should be reactivated. And this photo is interesting and IMO deserves consideration. I'd prefer if it were de-noised just a bit, but it's a good photo. I would contest the FPD, but I'm not sure how to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Eatcha, per the rules, a FPX is still considered active as I can be contested anytime during 24 hours. A denied nom can also be removed from the list after 24 h, but as there is interest to continue voting I will remove my FPD after the deadline of the FPX has passed and I closed that other nom for good. – Lucas 07:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucas, please remove it before 13:00UTC otherwise the bot will close it. (24 hours limit at 08:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)) -- Eatcha (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The colors seem overcooked and there are halos around the tower due to oversharpening. Coordinates would be nice. – Lucas 07:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak Support Street view here -- Eatcha (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The technical quality should be better. -XRay talk 10:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas.--Vulphere 08:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Normally I'd agree that it's a little overdone, and it does look like some filter was applied, but in this case it offsets the effects of the cloudy sky and dull light. Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I'm seeing the halos on the upper reaches of the lighthouse. User:ValentinManus, if you would eliminate the halos effectively, I would support this nomination because the form works for me and the low angle is interesting, making me feel like I'm on the water. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above--Boothsift 21:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think this is actually quite good, and certainly rather beautiful, despite the slight halos. I don’t see any great issue with over processed colours. Cmao20 (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

File:F18 aboard USS Carl Vinson.jpg,Edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2019 at 06:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
  •   Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Rebecca Sunderland - uploaded by User:Cogaidh - nominated by Gbawden -- Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry only adding now, didn't read the instructions Gbawden (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like how part of the plane and another worker is obstructed by the worker in the front. Colors look overprocessed. – Lucas 07:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral because the wow factor is very high... but I really think the image should have a higher resolution.--Peulle (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info I've commented out the the Bot closing since this has not been visible here until now. The nominator altered the timestamp on the nom, but the Bot keeps track of it anyway. If anyone has a better idea of doing this, please do so. --Cart (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Has WOW -- Eatcha (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain Will vote after another look later--Boothsift 04:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • After a second look, I'm going to go with   Oppose mainly for the issues noted by Lucas and Cart--Boothsift 22:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the compo a bit messy and unbalanced. These are also technical issues as noted above. --Cart (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart; the contre-jour idea could have worked but not here, where the sunlight is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much clarity and burnt sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I think that the photographer had a good idea but the person at right that partially blocks the view of the principal subject is sub-optimal. --Pine (✉) 21:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart and Lucas, it’s dramatic but composition and quality are not FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

File:St. Wolfgang kath. Pfarrkirche Pacher-Altar Sonntagsseite 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2019 at 04:33:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Austria
  •   Info St. Wolfgang Altarpiece at the catholic parish- and pilgrimage church St. Wolfgang im Salzkammergut, Upper Austria. View for weekdays with closed wings. Michael Pacher, 1471–79, set up in 1481. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Michael Pacher is a fantastic painter I wasn't aware of. The richness and depth of field in these paintings is wonderful! You captured them really well. You could add even more value to the photo if you can identify what scene each panel depicts. I could recognize some of them, but not all, and some people won't recognize any. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your suggestion. Indeed, this is work in progress, as I have some more images of this altar piece, which show the individual panels. But these still await final processing and upload. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The window frames in the background suggest either the whole setup in the room was not right or the camera was off-center. IMHO in either case you should have seen this and corrected the camera position to make it look centered. The bottom crop is too tight for me, it barely clears the bottom of the wood structure. There are magenta CAs on the windows. – Lucas 07:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I was standing right in the middle of the nave. These old buildings are usually not completely straight and rectangular. CAs are fixed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good! --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Michael Pacher, wow, he lets us forget some offset pixels! --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not easy to make but very well implemented--Ermell (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support How beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.07.10.-02-Wendisch Rietz--Kaisermantel-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 18:32:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
  •   Info Let us make it clear from the start: If you like the background or not, I love the colour contrast of the butterfly to it. And there is no more room below so I had to crop it above in about the same distance. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I love that you have the guts to nominate a photo with such a "non-Commons" crop; filling the frame like that feels fresh. The total color experience is great, soft, warm and lovely. This could be a print on something in a high-end store. --Cart (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Really beautiful butterfly and very impressive resolution and sharpness! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. --Podzemnik (talk) 02:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 03:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart and I like the background very much – Lucas 07:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cart is right, it feels fresh. Not because you filled the frame (that can look quite static and boring) but because of how you did it. The diagonal flower. The butterfly making its own diagonal that is not quite aligned with the flower but does provide some symmetry due to how the wing tips are positioned relative to the left and right edge. The composition is clearly structured, but still feels very dynamic. --El Grafo (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Crop not how I like it, but artistic impression and technical quality overcome this weakness. Charles (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Provisional oppose due to licensing issue I think that the image is great, but I have a concern. The file page says "Overwriting my file is prohibited. If a different version is created, it must be uploaded under use of the template derivative under another name and linked here. The Category Images by Hockei has to be added in the other version." I am not aware of a Commons policy that allows an author to place a restriction on the file like this. The author seems to be licensing this image with a variation of the Creative Commons license, and as far as I know custom licenses such as this are not allowed on Commons. Please consider revising the license of the file. --Pine (✉) 21:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Not at all what you say. I just want anybody not to overwrite my file. I have my reason for that. Look at here. This user Amara overwrote my file with a thumbnail again and again. But my work is my work. Anybody can use my picture according the cc by-sa **. Therefore what you write is completely nonsense. Please don't bring me in a discussion for that. I have no time the next few weeks. Just think twice before you write such stupid stuff. --Hockei (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
What that user did was simple vandalism. They should have been blocked for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Pine: Agree with Hockei, this is Commons-only, non-copyright restriction in line with COM:OVERWRITE guidelines. -- King of ♠ 04:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hockei, King of Hearts: thanks for the comments. I think that a creator requesting that others not overwrite the file is okay, and I think that a creator requesting that others contact the creator first before overwriting a file is okay. However, unless I have overlooked something in COM:OVERWRITE, I do not believe that a creator is permitted on Commons to make a permanent and complete prohibition against someone else from overwriting a file. My comment here is not intended to support edit wars regarding versions of a file. If Hockei changes the comment on the file page from "Overwriting my file is prohibited." to "Please do not overwrite this file without consulting me first, and if you want to edit the file then I request that you upload the derivative as a separate file.", I would be okay with that request, and I hope that Hockei will agree to this softer wording. Thank you. --Pine (✉) 00:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hockei: I agree with Pine that you should consider a softer wording than "prohibited" simply to create a more collegial atmosphere. That said, I don't think this restriction is meant to apply to the license and hence cannot render it invalid (i.e. I don't think Hockei intends to hold those overwriting his file on Commons in violation of the license, merely in violation of COM:OVERWRITE guidelines). And to be technical about it, is overwriting others' files really not prohibited? Per IAR there is no dividing line between makruh and haram, only a sliding scale of undesirable actions. If someone persisted in overwriting other people's files after being repeatedly asked not to, a block could very well be in order. -- King of ♠ 01:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Superb work, I think this is one of your best. Cmao20 (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great compo Poco2 18:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:View from Mirador El Time - La Palma.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2019 at 07:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View from the Mirador El Time on the southwestern part of La Palma with the Caldera de Taburiente (left), the cities Los Llanos de Aridane, El Paso and Tazacorte, the Cumbre Nueva with the cloudfall, the Cumbre Vieja and the banana plantations along the coast; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This looks really great at full-page size on my 13-inch laptop, but when I look at the file at larger sizes, I see what looks like one or more bad frames. I've marked their approximate location. It's striking because the buildings in the town look good but the greenhouses or areas of farm with tarpaulins over them to the right of the town look intensely blurry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done You are right, some frames were not sharp. Fortunately I had made another Panorama from the same place which is sharp. I replaced the unsharp version by this second panorama --Llez (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Much better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit unfortunate as I preferred the look of the other one, but nonetheless this one is deserving of FP. -- King of ♠ 03:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the weather conditions were not ideal, there is too much haze in the distance. Overall the colors and landscape aren't wowing for me. – Lucas 07:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    •   Info But only under these weather conditions you have the typical (and impressive) cloudfall at the Cumbre Nueva. --Llez (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I didn't know that "tablecloth" thing with the clouds and the mountain happened other places besides Cape Town. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice Cmao20 (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Saint Martin church in Naucelle 10.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 21:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Yukon mirror.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 16:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Yukon
  •   Info Nameless lake in the woods of Yukon. Captured, uploaded & nominated by me, Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 19:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Serene composition. Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Too much sky IMO --Llez (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Category? Reflection? -- Eatcha (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The compo is a little bit too simple. That much almost white(blank) sky and its reflection doesn't work for the photo. It's probably one of those times when the real life experience was awesome but it doesn't translate to the photo. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 07:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think part of the air needs to be cut off. To balance the photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It clearly needs a perspective correction and although the lighting is good there is too much sky on the top, it would definitively benefit from a crop to achieve better symmetry with the lower portion. If both issues adressed I would reconsider to change this opposing vote Poco2 17:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree that there's too much sky for my taste, but I also think there's too much water. This is indeed a peaceful scene, but to my eyes, the image more or less just sits there, with the exception of the obvious broadening from left to right. The piece of driftwood helps a little, and there's one cloud that subtly points to the right, but it's not enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan, it just feels too empty as a whole. – Lucas 09:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan especially --Boothsift 03:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Famberhorst. Daniel Case (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Famberhorst.--Vulphere 08:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Solitary sandpiper in swamps.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 16:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes
  •   Info Solitary sandpiper relaxing by the water in a warm afternoon. Taken somewhere in the swamps of Yukon. Captured, uploaded and nominated by me, Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A lovely capture, nice and sharp, and with relatively little noise. Some might complain that the bird is too small in the frame, but I think it can be seen as an image of the bird in its natural habitat and so the background is valuable to have. Cmao20 (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmao20: Thanks. This is the original size, uncropped. I have one more cropped so the bird is like 40 % of the frame but I decided to use this one on Wiki precisely because of the habitat/environment around and keep the informative value. Otherwise, I like the crop better, esthetically. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Great capture of a bird in its natural environment. The sandpiper is quite small but the resolution and the quality are very good. I'd probably prefer to crop a bit from the bottom and even more from the top to place the bird in the middle - but it's good as it is anyway :) --Podzemnik (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Podzemnik: Thanks, as per above. Btw you can check the crop version on my profile at F***** to compare (don't wanna publish the link for the service here). -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The vertical composition helps emphasize the shallow depth of field and the various features of the habitat. -- King of ♠ 21:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Too much background for a small bird. I would have cropped the image more tight to the bird in a landscape aspect ratio and with the eye right in the vertical center of the image. --Granada (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik. --Aristeas (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support See Granada note.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Granada Poco2 17:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Granada – Lucas 17:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not good enough quality to crop. Charles (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just too busy to work for me as an FP even if it were cropped. Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Granada.--Vulphere 08:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Probably a valuable image per Cmao20's point, but it would inspire me more if the bird were sharper, and I believe I recall sharper FPs of sandpipers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:African Cape Daisy (Osteospermum barberiae).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 13:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info all by AntanO -- AntanO 13:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- AntanO 13:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice and simple. -- King of ♠ 15:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per KoH Poco2 17:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry but this doesn't seem completely sharp to me, at least not as sharp as some other flower pictures I've seen round here. Cmao20 (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - It would be nice to know what the diameter of the flower is (AntanO, you might add that information to the file description if you have it), but it's sharp enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely and simple. --Gnosis (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Can't get much better than this IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Oberbaumbrücke November 2013 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 11:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support though the sky could be cropped a little bit --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Not balanced IMO; too much sky making the composition bottom-heavy, and also right-heavy as well. -- King of ♠ 14:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I will support both versions when a suitable crop is made to the foreground, to eliminate the little bits of something (boats?) toward the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco below. – Lucas 07:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Alt: cropEdit

 

  •   Info crop by me. Tomer T (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Also fine. Cmao20 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this version --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you for nomination and votes. 6 years later, I'm still very happy with my photos from Berlin.--ArildV (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality but the shadow on the left is not helping and the crane in the middle is just spoiling the image. The Oberbaum bridge does definitely have FP potential but I'd really enjoy seeing it here free of cranes and with a more interesting light, sorry. Poco2 17:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - For what it's worth, the crane is just another perpendicular to me and doesn't damage the composition. To each his/her own. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Helgoland - Blick vom Lummenfelsen zur Langen Anna.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2019 at 09:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
  •   Info View from the "Lummenfelsen" called rock on the island of Heligoland to the Lange Anna. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment maybe a bit underexposed? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it, interesting scene and good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The midsummer 2PM lighting causes shadows to appear where you don't want them to appear, and the lit portions to be less vibrant than ideal. Also plenty of blown whites at the bottom. -- King of ♠ 14:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine shot . --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good, interesting composition, and extremely well-executed as usual. I have no problem with the shadows. Blown whites (bird excrement, I believe), if indeed blown, are minimal in context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality but the lighting could have been more pleasant, sorry --A.Savin 23:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You have a good point. Your photo is better. Why don't you nominate it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Because it´s oversaturated. --Milseburg (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I for myself have a rather low tolerance for overdone saturation, normally I take the green of the grass and/or the blue of the sky as reference and reduce the level. But whereas it is easy to reduce the whole saturation or chosen channels at any time afterwards, you cannot add much more light to your picture when you have taken it in weak light, and the beauty of Heligoland cliffs (including the colours) is only seen entirely when it is sufficiently lit. Anyone who juxtapose both picture see the difference immediately. Your picture may be correctly saturated, but the colours that I would like to see are definitely lost there. --A.Savin 13:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad light. -- -donald- (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per KoH and A.Savin – Lucas 12:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I can spend more light to the shadows if wanted, but I think in general shadows give more vividness to the relief as everywhere the same lighting. --Milseburg (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
    Shadows of course add dimensionality - if they are in the right direction. Here the shadows go straight down unfortunately, making the scene look flat to me. -- King of ♠ 14:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 03:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Since I !voted for A. Savin's picture that didn't pass, I will say that this is just as good. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a surprisingly nice image to view at 100% zoom and scroll around, but if viewed as a whole it doesn't really convince me. --El Grafo (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Domaine de Maizerets park, Québec city, Canadá 09.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 17:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
  •   Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Was ready to oppose at first, but the detail at full resolution is excellent. I still think it's a bit low on wow, but overall worth a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow mainly due to the overcast day, the random people and big empty lawn in the foreground. The right crop is unsatisfying, the brown gravel field should have been included fully. – Lucas 10:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Lucas. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 15:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas, disturbing trees on the left/portion of the maze missing, uninteresting lighting, cluttered compo (what is the main element?) Poco2 17:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
No todas las composiciones necesitan tener un sujeto principal, sin embargo, en este caso es el laberinto. Muchas gracias por tu pregunta --Wilfredor (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see why the photographer might have taken the image, but it doesn't work. There are just too many things here trying to be the subject, helped by the dull light. Perhaps the maze by itself from this angle might have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others above--Boothsift 21:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Yuri Gagarin (1961).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2019 at 14:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Perhaps he's calling attention to some clichéd aspect of the photograph  . Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift 17:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yeah, I like his happy, youthful appearance, though I agree with Cart, especially on the composition. But how historically important is this particular portrait? It seems to be the best one we've got on Commons, and he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure. We do have this reproduction of a painting, too, but it's below the normal minimum size for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I would say it is unique and unmatched in EV. Gagarin's face was scarred when he fell jumping off a balcony while escaping from his wife who had caught him cheating in September 1961. In case you are not aware, he became the first human in space in April 1961. So this is the only photo likely to be available of how he looked pre-incident and best representation of his appearance while he was on his historic first mission to space. It may also be the best/only clear portrait of him we have in general because he died in 1968. I do not know how to clean up the scratches around his chin. If any one is good at that I would welcome it. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course I'm very much aware of Gagarin's pioneering voyage in space, which is why I wrote that "he's obviously an exceedingly important historical figure". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The italics was not intended for you. The dates are more important to answering your question. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, and it did help to answer my question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart as the lamp shade and chin shadow are serious photographical flaws and Commons FP are centered around photographic excellence. IMHO this fits far better with the goal of Wikipedia FP. – Lucas 21:52, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucasbosch, as this particular image doesn't appear to be that significant (he was the subject of lots of pictures, and this one doesn't stand out), and it's got the problems mentioned above. And I agree on en:WP:FP: "unmatched in EV" doesn't matter here as much as there. We can promote images passing COM:SCOPE even if they're not currently in use anywhere, while great educational value can't salvage a not-so-good photo. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - Do you have any thoughts about another photo of him that would be a better FP candidate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Tentative   Support, pending a satisfactory answer to this question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, but quite sure it is a Wikipedia FP. Cmao20 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart and the pose. The side glance and the weird smile undermine the dignity of his uniform and make the picture an unresolvable contradiction (Perhaps, per my remark to Cart, that's what's being lampshaded! Bah-DUMP-ump ... crasssssshhhhh! Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I suppose you'll "be here all week" and we should "remember to tip the waitress".   --Cart (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)