Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Propositions d'images remarquables

Les règles des Propositions d'images remarquables ont changé.
Conformément aux règles générales, une image est promue avec 7 (sept) votes "support" ou plus (et un ratio de 2/1 de # supports/opposes) et le nombre de nominations actives par utilisateur est limité à 2 (deux)
Désormais, seuls peuvent voter les membres inscrits depuis plus de 10 jours ayant procédé à au moins 50 interventions dans "Commons"


Skip to current candidates Aller directement aux propositions en cours

Cette page recense les images qui sont proposées pour être affichées dans les Images remarquables. Notez qu'il ne s'agit pas de la même chose que l'image du jour ou que les images de qualité.

Les archives des votes précédents se trouvent sur cette page.

Il existe également une liste chronologique des images remarquables.

Voir aussi les Images de qualité, les propositions d'images de qualité et les critiques photographiques.

ProcédureEdit

Conseils avant de proposer une imageEdit

partie en cours de traduction depuis la version anglaise, votre avis est le bienvenu.
Lisez entièrement le guide avant de commencer
Quelques règles informelles à retenir avant de proposer une image (les termes en italiques sont la traduction anglaise des termes).

  • Définition (display resolution) : les images de Commons peuvent être utilisées sur d'autres supports qu'un écran d'ordinateur, par exemple pour être imprimées ou vues à très haute résolution. Il est important que les images proposées aient la plus haute résolution possible. Au moins 2 millions de pixels (par ex. 2000 x 1000) semble raisonnable à présent. Les images de définition inférieure sont systématiquement rejetées sauf s'il y a une bonne raison.
  • Mise au point (focus) : tous les objets importants de l'image devraient être nets. Dans l'idéal les objets non primordiaux sont nets.
  • Avant-plan et arrière-plan (background and foreground): ils peuvent être dérangeants. Le sujet principal ne devrait pas être caché par le premier plan, ni se confondre avec l'arrière-plan.
  • Qualité générale (general quality) : Les images proposées devraient avoir une très haute qualité technique.
  • Une retouche (digital manipulations) ne doit pas tromper l'observateur. La correction de quelques défauts dans l'image est acceptée pour autant que ce soit limité, bien fait, et non pour tromper. Les retouches courantes sont le recadrage, la correction de la perspective, de netteté, des couleurs ou de l'exposition. Des manipulations plus importantes, tels quel l'élimination d'éléments dans l'arrière plan, doivent être décrites dans la description de l'image, par le biais du modèle {{RetouchedPicture}}. Les retouches non décrites ou mal décrites qui transformeraient le sujet sont inacceptables.
  • Utilité (value) : notre but principal est de présenter des images utiles et précieuses. Les images devraient ainsi être spéciales d'une façon ou d'une autre, donc, entre autres :
    • La plupart des coucher de soleil sont beaux, et la plupart ne sont pas différents des autres existant déjà.
    • Les photos de nuit sont souvent belles mais davantage de détails sont visibles de jour.
    • "Beau" ne veut pas dire "utile".

Au niveau technique, nous avons l'exposition, la composition, le mouvement et la profondeur du champ.

  • L'exposition (exposure) est l'obturation du diaphragme qui modifie la luminosité (brightness) pour rendre avec qualité les ombres et les lumières au sein de l'image. Le manque d'ombres dans le détail n'est pas nécessairement négatif, cela peut être un effet désiré.
  • La composition (composition) est l'arrangement des éléments dans l'image. La "Règle de trois" est un bon guide pour la composition, c'est un héritage des écoles de peintures. L'idée est de diviser l'image par deux lignes horizontales et deux lignes verticales, nous avons donc trois parties dans chaque sens. L'objet ne doit pas forcément être centré. Les sujets intéressants doivent êtres placés aux 4 croisements des lignes. L'horizon ne doit jamais être mis au milieu, car il couperait l'image en deux. L'idée principale ici est de rendre l'image dynamique.
  • Netteté (sharpness) renvoie à la manière dont les mouvements sont représentés dans l'image. Ils peuvent être nets ou flous. Ils ne sont pas mieux l'un que l'autre, cela dépend de l'intention du photographe. L'impression de mouvement dépend des différents objets de l'image. Par exemple, photographier une voiture de course qui apparaît nette par rapport à l'arrière plan ne donne pas une idée de la vitesse. Il faudrait en fait que la voiture soit représentée nette, mais avec un arrière plan flou, créant ainsi le mouvement. D'un autre coté, représenter le saut d'un joueur de basket net avec le reste de l'image flou, en raison de la nature peu habituelle de la photo, lui conférerait de l'intérêt.
  • La profondeur de champ (depth of field or DOF) renvoie à la zone de mise au point devant et au delà du sujet principal. La profondeur de champ est choisie en fonction des besoins spécifiques à chaque image. Une profondeur grande ou petite peu améliorer ou dégrader la qualité de l'image. Une faible profondeur de champ peu attirer l'attention sur le sujet principal, en le séparant de son environnement. Le lentilles à petite distance focale (grand angle) ont une grande profondeur de champ, et vice versa, les lentilles à grande distance focale (petite ouverture) ont une petite profondeur de champ.

PropositionEdit

Si vous pensez avoir trouvé ou créé une image qui puisse être considérée comme parmi les meilleures de Commons, avec une description et une licence appropriée, copiez le nom de l'image dans la boîte ci-dessous (en incluant le préfixe File:), après le texte déjà présent :


Après cela, vous devrez insérer un lien vers la page que vous venez de créer en haut de Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

VoteEdit

A l'exclusion de tous autres, vous pouvez utiliser les modèles suivants:

  • {{Pour}} (  Support),
  • {{Contre}} (  Oppose),

Ainsi que :

  • {{Neutre}} (  Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (  Comment),
  • {{Info}} (  Info),
  • {{Question}} (  Question).


IMPORTANT: veuillez notamment NE PAS UTILISER les modèles {{weak support}} (  Weak support) ni {{weak oppose}} (  Weak oppose), ils ne sont pas reconnus par le robot, et votre vote serait considéré comme non valide.

Merci d'inclure quelques mots expliquant pourquoi vous soutenez ou non la promotion de l'image, surtout si vous votez contre. N'oubliez pas de signer avec ~~~~.

RèglesEdit

Règles généralesEdit

  1. Le résultat est donné 9 jours après la proposition (voir le planning en bas de page). Les votes ajoutés le 10e jour ou après ne sont pas décomptés.
  2. Les utilisateurs non-enregistrés peuvent proposer des images, faire des commentaires, mais pas voter.
  3. La proposition elle-même ne compte pas comme un vote : il faut l'ajouter explicitement.
  4. Le proposant peut retirer une image à tout moment, en écrivant : {{withdraw}} ~~~~
  5. Souvenez-vous que le but de Wikimedia Commons est une bibliothèque pour tous les projets Wikimedia, y compris des projets futurs ; les images n'ont pas à être utiles uniquement pour Wikipédia.
  6. Les images peuvent être retirées de la liste dès le 5e jour si elles n'ont reçu aucun vote "pour".
  7. Soyez attentifs et très sélectifs dans les choix que vous faites, car il ne peut y avoir que deux propositions actives par proposant. Toute proposition supplémentaire sera rejetée sans examen.
  8. Seulement 2 nominations actives par même utilisateur (qui est, en nomination sous "review" et non encore close) sont autorisées. Le principal but de cette mesure est de contribuer à une meilleure qualité moyenne des nominations, par un choix plus judicieux des photos présentes en nominations.

Règles de promotionEdit

L'image candidate devient une image remarquable si elle remplit les conditions suivantes :

  1. Une licence appropriée (bien sûr !)
  2. Au moins sept votes "pour".
  3. un ratio de 2/1 de votes "pour"/"contre".
  4. Deux versions différentes de la même image ne peuvent pas être promues en même temps, mais seulement celle avec le plus grand score.

ContestationsEdit

Avec le temps, les critères d'évaluation évoluent, et il peut être décidé qu'une image qui était auparavant assez bonne pour être dans la liste ne peut plus l'être.

Pour qu'une image soit déchue, il faut qu'une majorité de 2/3 avec au moins 5 votes accepte de retirer l'image, autrement elle reste "remarquable". Pour voter, utiliser les modèles {{Keep}} (  Keep : mérite de rester "remarquable") ou {{Delist}} (  Delist  : ne mérite plus le label).

Pour contester une image, copiez son nom avec le préfixe dans la boîte ci-dessous à la suite du texte déjà présent :


Vous devriez inclure les informations suivantes :

  • Informations sur l'origine de l'image (créateur, importateur).
  • Un lien vers le vote d'origine.
  • La raison pour laquelle vous contestez le label, avec votre signature.

Insérez ensuite un lien en haut de Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal.

SommaireEdit

Pour ajouter votre proposition à la listeEdit

Pour ajouter votre proposition à la liste, cliquez ici et ajoutez votre proposition en haut de la liste : {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:FILENAME}}

Propositions en coursEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Tokyo Metro and JR East at Ochanomizu, Tokyo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 19:48:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Guanajuato pano1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:43:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   InfoGuanajuato is a city and the capital of the state of the same name. Situated in a narrow valley, most of its narrow and winding streets are alleys that cars cannot pass through, and some are long sets of stairs up the mountainsides. Many of the city’s thoroughfares are partially or fully underground. The historic center has numerous small plazas and colonial-era mansions, churches and civil constructions built using pink or green sandstone. Historically Guanajuato was an influential mining city that, in the 18th century, accounted for two-thirds of the world’s silver production. All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The shadow in the bottom is distractiong and the image needs a better stitching, in some areas it is tilted in one direction and in some other in the other direction. Quality, on the other side is very good. Poco2 18:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you mark/tag some zig-zag tilting areas please? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guildfordia yoka delicata 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:18:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Capivara(Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 17:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Arara Azul no Pantanal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 17:26:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created and uploaded by Leonardo Ramos - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support New category: macro-bird-photography! (Focal plane seems to be a bit closer than the eyes but because of that most of the body feathers are in perfect focus and show wonderful detail so it's not a prob I think.) -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good, but please fix the categories, unless I'm mistaken, this is a photo of a bird not a park. --cart-Talk 20:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a kind of halo along the left border of the wing on the right side --Llez (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:EstatuaFliaAlzaga-jun2017edited.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 12:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Heiliggrabkapelle -- 2017 -- 0015-21.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 07:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There were lights behind the wall and the paintings are pale. --XRay talk 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah, so they've faded. I'll go ahead and support. Nice job given the conditions.PumpkinSky talk 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Nevertheless I'll check for improvements. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 15:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Dachgeschoss -- 2017 -- 9918-24 (bw).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 04:52:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 04:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info There is a colored version of this image too. IMO the black-and-white one is the better one. It emphasizes the structure and the room. --XRay talk 04:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 04:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I am currently reading "Black & White Photography: The timeless art of monochrome in the post-digital age" by Michael Freeman (only £5.99 in the Kindle edition which looks great on my phone/PC). Freeman extensively discusses "why b&w", and this image is a great example. -- Colin (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Colin: didn't notice he had a new one out: thanks for the info → paperback pre-ordered. --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An irresistible storage of angles and lines. --cart-Talk 09:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agree, the b&w version is better. Lovely. Nice job. PumpkinSky talk 11:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support excellent bw conversion --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral blacks are too harsh for the mood I think. -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Tugboats Boss and Svitzer Hymer leaving Lahälla 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 19:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info Tugboats Svitzer Hymer and Boss in Brofjorden setting out to assist a tanker entering the fjord and the oil port at Preemraff oil refinery. The fjord is so deep that the tankers have no problem going right up to the berths and cliffs along the shore, but when the wind is strong (as it was this day), an empty tanker lying high in the water can drift when it's going at a low speed. That's where the tugboats come in. The tugboats are stationed at Lahälla, across the fjord from the oil port. I was there to photograph Ryxö island for sv-wiki, so I had a front row seat and camera ready when the boats set out. I got a whole series of shots and I like this one best because of the relatively clean background and also because the distance from the camera makes the two boats appear in more similar size in the photo. There is something very wow-y seeing such powerful boats making good speed across the water, even if you can't hear the sound in the photos. All by me, -- cart-Talk 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I can almost hear them. Atsme 📞 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good arrangement, with uncluttered background. -- Colin (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Love it, especially all the rich vibrant blues. PumpkinSky talk 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry, but the focus is a bit too soft for me, especially on the top half of the left boat.--Peulle (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Please don't use the {{weak oppose}} or similar templates as the Bot can't count these. Use the piped version of {{o}} and {{s}} instead. I have fixed that for you now. :) As for the focus, well, in this case it was either sharper boats when they were closer but with a cluttered background, or boats further away with better background but softer focus. See the series on the file page. I chose the better compo. --cart-Talk 12:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that about the bot. Thanks.--Peulle (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Photographers don't often take a stern view of boats (I guess they like them too much  ). Good for you for making this one work so well. And how helpful that one of them has its IMO painted on its stern! Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! The stern is sort of the "business end" of a tugboat so more interesting than the bow. I also like the "going away on a mission" feeling you get from a stern view. --cart-Talk 20:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Winter Landscape with Brabrand Church.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 19:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Landscape
  •   Info In this sunny June weather, here's a lovely winter landscape painting to cool you down. Painting by Christian David Gebauer. Photo all by me. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- of course -- --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - what Christmas cards are made of...Atsme 📞 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks like Currier and Ives PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Love those old days! Jee 03:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • edges are seen on left and right side. --Mile (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • None of the frame is visible. There is nothing more to trim without losing painting. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
      • It could be some shadow from the frame, that is often a problem at museums. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't see a way to avoid this without removing the painting from the frame. It isn't imo intrusive as the painting is quite dark. If our artwork experts think it is fine to trim a pixel off the left and right, then I can do that, otherwise I'd prefer to show as much of the painting as possible. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice cooling motif. It is captured very well so that you can see the brush strokes but they are not lighted in a way that disturbs the painting. Knowing how meticulous you are, I have no doubt the WB and color correspond with the original even, if they are a bit different from the other photos of this painting. --cart-Talk 09:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good work, you can even see the cracks in the paint.--Peulle (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Elvis Presley, Delbert Sonny West, and Jerry Schilling meeting Richard Nixon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 15:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Ollie Atkins, chief White House photographer, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Grainy, but cannot be retaken... I think this one is the best picture of the meeting. I did very little restoration. Please tell me if you think more is needed. -- Yann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - the picture made me a little weak-kneed....(seeing Elvis of course)...Atsme 📞 20:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It has a certain wow factor, but the grain is disturbing. I know it was 1970, but the technology back then wasn't good enough to get a decent shot inside the White House? It just looks like the guy grabbed any old camera and took a snapshot rather than preparing with a proper camera and a flash. I'm not opposing because of said wow factor, but I just can't bring myself to support it either.--Peulle (talk) 12:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the Oval was as ell lit during the everyday business as you'd think it was, meaning for simple hand held shots they had to use fast films -> grain. Also if you compare it to the Elvis-Nixon pic this clearly is a significantly better scan as well. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Aciagrion occidentale-Kadavoor-2017-05-08-001.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 14:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info Aciagrion occidentale, Green striped slender dartlet, is a species of damselfly in the family Coenagrionidae found in India, Sri Lanka. This is a small and slender damselfly. They are extremely slim compared to the length 22-24mm; that's why this genus is called "Slims". But, in spite of their delicate build, they enjoy migration by rising high in the air and takes advantage of its lightweight in air currents. All by Jkadavoor -- Jee 14:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jee 14:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the angle of the plant and the insect --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 15:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but it is too dark. Additionally the black background above the head and thorax is very disturbing me. The dragonfly almost merges with it. --Hockei (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Wow! That dartlet is like the Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner of the insect world. Atsme 📞 20:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak Support because of the dark background -- Wolf im Wald 20:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 09:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Vettisfossenvideo.webmEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 12:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created, uploaded & nominated by Kallerna. Not sure about the criteria for videos, but I guess this one has a lot of "wow". kallerna 12:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support kallerna 12:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Its too short, and could be in 16:9, not 9:16. Strange to see. Also quality is not great, like not in HD. --Mile (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Mile ... I really don't think this phone-style video works for this. When it comes back up I want to see more of the landscape. If it had just been a static image of the waterfall, without any attempt to show the surroundings, I think it could have worked. Daniel Case (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I also agree with Mile. It is too hasty, like a video you do when you don't want a too large file to send to friends on the phone. The rollercoaster panning of the shot does not make for a pleasant experience either. --cart-Talk 09:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. It has a bit of wow, but that's all it has.--Peulle (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Монашките испоснички пештери во Зрзе.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 10:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:EstatuaTumbaFliaAlzaga-jun2017.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 22:23:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info all by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Looks good at full screen on my laptop, but at full size, highlights are blown. Could you fix that? I'm not guaranteed to support if you do (I like the statue, so I may support, but I'm less sure about the other things at the bottom, so I might not vote), but if not, I will probably oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry, per Ikan, there's a couple of technical issues --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others wrt blown highlights but the composition at the bottom is cluttered. Not even a QI I'm afraid. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Highlights fixed @Ikan Kekek: --Ezarateesteban 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    The image no longer appears to have any shadow or black tones at all. I think you need to learn to use RawTherapee better or else find a better tool. You could try "Capture One Express (for Sony) 10.0 Windows", which is what Jee uses. -- Colin (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for making the highlights less bright. I'm still not feeling wowed, though. The bottom and top of the statue are noticeably unsharp and the sky is a bit blotchy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    Yes; CaptureOne is free for Sony raw files. It has wonderful ability to keep the black as black even if we lift the shadows a lot. Jee 02:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise, CA and cluttered bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination thanks to all Ezarateesteban 12:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Lagartija de lava de San Cristóbal (Microlophus bivittatus), Punta Pitt, isla de San Cristóbal, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-24, DD 46.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 22:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  •   Info Male exemplar of a San Cristóbal lava lizard (Microlophus bivittatus), a species of lava lizard endemic to San Cristóbal Island (where the image was taken) in the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. Poco2 22:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 22:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition is out here. --Mile (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background is too much of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow. Looks like a standard lizard pic. Composition looks haphazard. Daphne Lantier 18:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    Daphne: Standard? Please, show me a second lizzard with this sharpness and resolution Poco2 18:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    When I said standard, I was referring more to the composition. The sharpness and resolution might make it a viable VIC, but there's nothing wowing overall. The lizard is sitting on a rock (part of which is cropped out) with a busy background. I also wonder about the lens focal length. I would think you could get closer to a sitting lizard than 200mm. In the end, I'm just saying the image doesn't wow me; I'm not saying it isn't a quality image. Daphne Lantier 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Impressive, but the tail of the lizard lacks of definition. --Harlock81 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Матка 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 21:41:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Oppose The white balance does look really off to me. Also, there's quite a lot of noise.--Peulle (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - the ripple effect in the water's reflection, the scene, the composition, the light refraction that makes it all seem unrealistic - love it. Atsme 📞 20:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle and Uoaei1. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now The noise is unavoidable when shooting fog (I know!) but the "fluorescent lamp" WB is not doing this photo any favors. I did a version taking the WB from the paint on one of the boats (it's in my dropbox) and this revealed a lot more detail in the mountains. It also gave the pic more depth since it shows that there is sunshine beyond the mists in the gorge. I could support such a version. --cart-Talk 10:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Portrait of Henry VIII of England (Holbein).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 20:25:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Henry VIII (28 June 1491 – 28 January 1547) was King of England from 21 April 1509 until his death. Henry was the second Tudor monarch, succeeding his father, Henry VII. Henry is best known for his six marriages and, in particular, his efforts to have his first marriage, to Catherine of Aragon, annulled. His disagreement with the Pope on the question of such an annulment led Henry to initiate the English Reformation, separating the Church of England from papal authority and appointing himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England. Despite his resulting excommunication, Henry remained a believer in core Catholic theological teachings.Hans Holbein the Younger (German: Hans Holbein der Jüngere) (c. 1497 – between 7 October and 29 November 1543) was a German and Swiss artist and printmaker who worked in a Northern Renaissance style. He is best known as one of the greatest portraitists of the 16th century.He also produced religious art, satire and Reformation propaganda, and made a significant contribution to the history of book design. He is called "the Younger" to distinguish him from his father, Hans Holbein the Elder, an accomplished painter of the Late Gothic school. All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose out of focus or motion blur --The Photographer 00:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very fine image, should try again - on higher ISO, some 1000 shouldnt hurt. --Mile (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others; not up to the exceedingly high standard set by painting photos by institutions like the Getty Museum. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Well below our standards for digitizations. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Half Dome from near Glacier Point.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 18:57:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States#California
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 18:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Spectacular like the other one but is there a need for 2 almost identical FPs? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I don't see them as almost identical. There are significant composition differences IMHO. Even if there weren't, I'd still support. PumpkinSky talk 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      •   Info Hello Kenny, this image was taken in 2016, the other one in 2015 during another trip. Moreover the images were taken from two different locations (see geodata) and I think they show different aspects (flora in the foreground vs. view into the valley). Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
        •   Comment Not much below the exact same discussion was going on about two bird pictures and what constitutes "different enough". -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
          •   Comment I've read the discussion, but between these bird images was a time difference of only a few minutes and the subject was the same (excluding the birds head pose). The Yosemite images show different perspectives and they have a time difference of about 11 months. Therefore the sky is very different becaus they were not taken at the same day. Besides the camera locations are about 500 meters apart (see geodata). So I don't think, that the situation is comparable with the bird. Regards -- Wolf im Wald 23:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
            •   Support People have spoketh. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - When I was comparing the two pictures, I felt the other one had a better composition, but this is such a big, sharp (with the exception of the near right corner) photo, with so many wonderful details that it deserves the star, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Quite a different viewpoint and composition with the foreground trees. Great resolution. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support but probably I would play a bit with exposure and WB - maybe this is not optimal yet. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Anyhow per Uoaei1. --Hockei (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Feels like I could walk right into it. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll bite on both these versions since they are so well done. Can't help but thinking that the Half Dome looks like a hooded version of the Grim Reaper looking out over his realm. --cart-Talk 10:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Eberstein Hochfeistritz Pfarr-und Wallfahrtskirche Unsere Liebe Frau 19062017 9688.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:52:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 19:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the diagonal line crossing the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support nice Ezarateesteban 23:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but I'm just not wowed. For me it's an average composition in average light. -- King of ♠ 04:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Compositionally very nice. --Code (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It's not the most "wow"-like image, but one thing that is usually difficult when shooting churches is the get the whole building from wall to spire sharp without distortions. That's done well here. Composition is good, depth is good - the only real issue with it is that the light is a bit boring. Next time, tell God to line up a sunset perfectly for you exactly when you need it. ;) --Peulle (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Your comments about the lighting conditions comply one hundred percent with my thoughts about the situation of the image. Hopefully it will occur one day that I will be there shooting at sunup or sundown. I started my prayers to God asking Him for compliancy. ;) -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the interplay of lines and forms. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Pink anemonefish BWP.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:20:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Fish
  •   Info Pink anemonefish (Amphiprion perideraion) shot underwater (Pacific) at dark thirty, approx. 40 ft. deep with noticeable current/surge as indicated by the anemone. Location was Manta Ray Bay, Federated States of Micronesia where the giant mantas fly in for cleaning. All by -- Atsme 📞 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Atsme 📞 16:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support good shot, if there would be higher pixelage i would crop to enfocus the fish. --Mile (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice fish expresion and hight EV --The Photographer 17:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Atsme, based on your superb track record of ocean pics, I assume this is real color, including the blue parts of the anemone tentacles (though is there posterization?), and I will   Support like everyone else. I think the most logical place for the annotation in the file would be where the fish is; do you agree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
All natural color, Ikan, and thank you for the kind words. The tips are iridescent so it's not surprising that with the refraction of light in the water and bounced light of the flash against the anemone tips, glints of different shades and colors would reflect off the tips. I do know the anemone will glow where the host fish touch it. I did clean up bits & pieces of backscatter in the background which is customary practice with u/w images. I also wouldn't doubt that when an anemone feels threatened, or it's host fish is fluttering about nervously that the reaction may cause some color changes but I'd have to do more research to be for certain. Apologies, but I'm not quite sure about your annotation reference?Forgot I added the annotation, and yes, I agree so I changed it.19:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC) I encourage you to do whatever you feel is necessary. Atsme 📞 18:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support a few small but ok --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 04:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 06:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The tiny amount of motion blur on the anemones doesn't detract from the fact that this is a stellar FP. Outstanding work. --Peulle (talk) 10:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Finding Atsme! :) It looks almost like a painting. --cart-Talk 10:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Після грози ).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 16:12:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Swift11 -- Swift11 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Swift11 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beeee-u-teee-ful....Atsme 📞 16:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It seems to be a spectacular picture but this is ps gone too far for me. Will absolutely support a more "modest" (and hopefully larger) version. -- KennyOMG (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Sorry, summer thunderstorms in the mountains, in "regime time" they are so... -- Swift11
  •   Comment Swift11 please can you upload this image without downsizing. -- Colin (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Please, the size increased -- Swift11
  •   Support Thanks for the size upgrade. There's little EXIF info but I assume this was shot with your D80 which explains why this cropped photo is still only 5MP. I'm a bit skeptical that some of the scene owes to processing rather than reality, but assuming not, then it really is too fantastic a view to oppose over minor technical issues. Could you please add an English description to the file page? -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done English description added -- Swift11
  •   Oppose It's beautiful and all, but the technical issues stand in the way of an FP for me; there seems to be some chromatic aberrations by the top of the trees, then there's the compression issues/grain in the grass near the camera as well as in the fog on the near left.--Peulle (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Fixed Fixed some technical flaws... Peulle thank you! -- Swift11 13:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin. Jee 12:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per other opposers --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Colin; I don't see anything that bothers me enough to oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Knez Miloš Obrenović.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2017 at 11:52:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Half Dome with Eastern Yosemite Valley.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 21:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info Template added. Thanks for your advice! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 19:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Chiang-Mai Thailand Buddhist-Manuscript-Library-and-Museum-01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 20:30:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The clouds seem oddly dull and the EXIF confirms the Lightroom Whites are -66 which is really quite extreme adjustment. Mostly I find Highlights does a better job than lowering Whites. It seems wrong to have "white" clouds so dark. -- Colin (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I reverted to the previous version. I wanted it to have it quite bright so that the wooden structure is visible in a print. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I really like this. PumpkinSky talk 01:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - perfect framing, great shot!! Atsme 📞 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A good motiv, but there are severe CAs, especially along the stems of the two palms on the left side, along the left side of the whitish portal and on both sides of the litte "tower" in between --Llez (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  Done I would not rate this as severe, but indeed, a slight adjustment of the defringe parameters resolved the issue. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Bridge as seen from Fort Point.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 19:52:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While not a bad picture in itself, I think this is one particular subject where the bar is set really, really high and unless the image is spectacular will not, or rather should not pass FP. As is, while not bad, it falls quite a bit short of WOW. -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm sufficiently wowed... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 08:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Kenny. The bar is high with this much photographed object. I´m not really convinced withe the left frame.--Milseburg (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others: Good, but doesn't really stand out among the masses. --El Grafo (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Clear FP for me.I cannot find masses of FPs of that bridge and especially from that point of view.--Ermell (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I took this picture when I realized that we don't have any decent pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge from that side of the Bay. If you browse throught the category Golden Gate Bridge from Fort Point you'll see what I mean. Now, there are many different ways you can photograph an iconic building like this. I chose to take a picture that shows it in a realistic and documentary style. Not one of those HDR / fake sky / etc. images. I tried to show the bridge the way I see it every morning. Ideally with some fog that slowly dissolves in the sun. I thought it was important to include Fort Point because it was almost demolished (the 1930s plan called for its removal), and I also tried to capture the enormous scale of the building. I acknowledge that other pictures might have more of a "wow factor" than this one. However, I'd just like to point out that I consciously captured the scene "as is", because I'd like us to have at least one featured picture of the bridge done without special effects. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. I got actually even more puzzled today when I looked at the Category:Featured pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge. Seems like we had no success in over a decade with creating a picture that shows the bridge as it is ;-)
  •   Support For Ermell!--LivioAndronico (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose. 16 MP in reasonably good early morning light is quite sufficient for a normal featured picture, but for something so heavily photographed with multiple FPs already, I'd expect more, either on resolution or "wow" factor. The bar is simply set quite high for the Golden Gate Bridge, even if this exact view has no FPs. -- King of ♠ 04:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Carefully considered oppose, now that King, who has a lot of SF FPs himself, has !voted. I fully endorse Frank's initiative in trying to take an FP-level image of the bridge from this angle, but as good as it is the bar is still higher. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'd like to comment on something else: there are a couple of white spots that I'm not sure about (see annotations), perhaps they're pixel flaws or perhaps it's nothing. But please take a look.--Peulle (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Peulle, it's birds. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment KennyOMG, Milseburg, El Grafo, King of hearts, Daniel Case: thanks a lot for your feedback. I really appreciate it. Over the past couple of years, feedback here on Commons has been essential for me to improve my photography skills. – Would you mind pointing me to photos on the web (Flickr, 500px, etc.) that come closer to what you're looking for? I'm really at a loss. Once I get a better idea of what you'd consider a superior picture, I'll go back and try to take a better image for Commons. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support it is a classical subject, nevertheless I like the picture.--Christof46 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King. --Karelj (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Queichwiese.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 18:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Kontraproduktivität - uploaded by Kontraproduktivität - nominated by Kontraproduktivität -- Kontraproduktivität (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kontraproduktivität (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I really want to support this but have a few issues. 1) the sky is completely blown on the right side, any chance to recover? 2. The trees have a nasty aura above them (too much clarity? or other local contrast adjustments?), should be done without. 3. Dust spots need to go. (4? It feels, and based on the church roofs on the left side it also seems, it has a mild tilt to the right, but might be wrong about this.) -- KennyOMG (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice golden-hour tones but the landscape alas just isn't special for me. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Cheveche d'Athèna Ichkeul.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 15:22:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:2016.09.09.-07-Anglersee Bruehl--Grosse Heidelibelle-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2017 at 10:58:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Libellulidae (Skimmers)
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I love it although DOF is pretty low. -- Wolf im Wald 13:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - only the head and top left wing is in focus which gives me pause but overall it's quite catchy. Atsme 📞 16:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info I used F13. This is according to my experience the best compromise between sharpness and DOF. F14, the next step, brings not much more worthwhile DOF in a picture like this and then F16 is hardly usable in most cases. -- Hockei (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Macros of tiny fluttery critters are near impossible to capture in full focus. Totally understand. Detail in the head, legs & anterior carapace are great!! Atsme 📞 03:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Alterskap Kvæfjord kirke 1520 (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 19:20:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  •   Info all by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark, bad flash reflection. Yann (talk) 09:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark. -- KTC (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. Also looks like it could be rotated to straighten a bit. Atsme 📞 15:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per others. Daphne Lantier 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for the reviews, people, they're helpful in understanding what is needed for FP shots. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Trithemis pallidinervis 1725.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 18:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  •   Info created and uploaded by Vengolis - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support - support everything except the soft focus. Atsme 📞 16:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The eyes should be sharp and they obviously are not in this case. Apparently was well concealed here.--Ermell (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Atsme and Ermell -- Wolf im Wald 15:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose - Dull light and good but not exceptional sharpness, so though quite good, this photo doesn't seem to me to be quite up to the level of really outstanding odonata FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice dragonfly. But the quality is not good enough. Low Sharpness and too much noise. Also the crop could be better. Right and left is too much empty room. --Hockei (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:New York 1911.webmEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 15:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
  •   Info created by Svenska Biografteatern, restored by the Museum of Modern Art, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info Music removed, as it is under a copyright. Yann (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Great historical document, very good restoration. -- Yann (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weeeell I have maaaany concerns with this, starting with the poor lighting, the spots flickering across the screen ... nah, I'm just kidding, no doubt a   Support vote from me. :) --Peulle (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great document! But did the musical score credited at the end play for you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Nope, not for me either, so I just started singing "New York, New York" over it. Somehow that sort of works.

It would be fun to try with "Empire State of Mind", too. Daniel Case (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I made a version without the copyright mention at the end for the music, but I can't rename it over this one now (phab:T168374). Yann (talk) 09:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a pity, because the music credit is confusing and really should be excised for versions without music. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a temporary glitch. I will move it as soon as it is fixed. Yann (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - love the history! Atsme 📞 16:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Amazing to see some familiar sights in there ... Daniel Case (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yes, I recognized quite a lot: Many of these buildings are still standing. Pity about that one wonderful low-rise building, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 08:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - in some scenes you see the price for this extreme denoising: dark shadows around black silhouettes - but overall a phantastic restauration. --PtrQs (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guépier d'Europe ichkeul 112.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 15:20:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support --Hockei (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Bottom crop is too tight on the tail feathers. Daphne Lantier 16:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent capture. Good and sharp rendition of the plumage.--Peulle (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 20:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 20:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good; but just turning the head in a few minutes difference will not make another FP. Jee 03:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jee. @Yann, Hockei, Daphne Lantier, Peulle, Der Wolf im Wald:@PumpkinSky: -- you can support both if you like but just making you aware we promoted the other side of his head only three weeks ago, and this frame wasn't uploaded at the time. I think El Golli Mohamed has uploaded many fine bird photos, and I'd prefer so see a nomination of a different one. -- Colin (talk) 07:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Machts nichts. It's the same species, maybe even the same bird, but it's not the same picture nor another version of the same picture. According to the EXIF data the two pics were shot at different times on the same day. It's in a different position and in a different pose. Oppose if you like though, @Colin:. PumpkinSky talk 09:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
      •   Comment Being new at FPC, I'm still a bit confused. Last time I asked, the answers seemed to conclude that it would be OK with several FPs of the same species of bird, but it was not really clear just how similar pictures have to be in order for them to overlap to the point that only one of them can be FP. Thinking about it now, I think I'll make my own decision instead of looking for a consensus: the way I read the rules, they want to avoid having several FP images that are very similar. Otherwise users would just upload dozens of images from the same set in order to get more FPs. I think this case hits that criterion - the only difference is the direction of the bird's head, everything else is the same IMO: position, location, time (only 4 min between). Personally, I think this capture is slightly better, so I would prefer to have the other image delisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peulle (talk • contribs) 10:49, 20 June 2017‎ (UTC)
        • Most of the photographers here will have many photos of each subject taken at essentially the same moment. For example, in the three minutes between these two photos, the camera EXIF claims 44 shots were taken. We choose the best one, rather than nominating every variation of subject movement, and I think most of us here would not like FP to become a forum where multiple frames from the same moment were routinely featured. That's what "finest" is about. Like El Grafo, I would support a "delist and replace" if El Golli Mohamed thinks this one is superior. I think they are much the same. -- Colin (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
          • @Peulle, Colin: Your posts explain your positions better. The crux of this issue is shown by "but it was not really clear just how similar pictures have to be in order for them to overlap to the point that only one of them can be FP", if 44 shots in 4 minutes is too similar, is 50 in 5 minutes ok? Just how much of the body position needs to change? "upload dozens of images from the same set in order to get more FPs" and "a forum where multiple frames from the same moment were routinely featured" suggest we want to avoid "FP count-itis", which I agree with. So the question becomes, where exactly do you draw the line? People aren't going to agree on this. I'll ponder this issue more. PumpkinSky talk 12:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
            • I don't think anyone would support trying to regulate this with something official, so there is no need to "draw the line". Why reduce the argument down to one that a machine could judge? Generally, this has not been a problem: most nominators quickly get the message that they should nominate a variety of dissimilar images. Mostly this sort of thing happens by accident because people are unaware of the nomination of a similar image. Part of the review process is examining similar images and similar FPs, and sometimes nominators forget to do this. FP is not just a method for choosing "our finest" work, but a forum where people enjoy reviewing great photos. If folk started nominating a series of similar images they took at the same time, perhaps with the argument "this one is just as good, therefore should be featured too" then we'd all get really bored really quickly. And there would also be a feeling that games were being played simply to get more FPs (not saying this is the case here). -- Colin (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
              • By drawing the line I meant we each have to decide where that line is ourselves. People will never agree what is too similar or not. PumpkinSky talk 14:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
                • Agree not everyone will agree on each image, which is why we vote/discuss, but the "line" doesn't have to be determined by some personal algorithm like you seem to imply with the 44 vs 50 frames question. It is more of a gut feeling and judgment call. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. FP is about images that stand out against others, so featuring basically the same motif twice doesn't make much sense to me. I like the composition of this on a bit better, so I'd probably support a "delist and replace" nomination, though. --El Grafo (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jee. --Hockei (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Though an analogous photograph, of the same author and about the same subject, was featured some weeks ago, it does not diminish the quality of this photo or its usefulness. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Harlock81, QI is the project where useful/high-quality is judged without reference to previous works. FP is for the "best" or "finest". -- Colin (talk)
      • Colin, IMHO if "the best" was been meant in a so absolute way, probably none picture presented in the last weeks could be considered appropriate for FP. --Harlock81 (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
      • I think you are misinterpreting what "the best" means. -- Colin (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
        • The problem is that "the best" and "the finest" aren't clearly defined in the rules. It seems to me that Colin interprets that to mean "the finest within a group of photos that are highly similar" (akin to VI rules). Even that begs the question "what exactly does highly similar mean?". As I said before, people simply aren't going to agree on this topic...it's too nebulous to precisely pin down. PumpkinSky talk 10:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
          • You are seeing problems where there aren't. Of course these cannot be "clearly defined". It is our job as "the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons". It seems pretty clear to me the community is capable of determining this without rules, an generally it does not require this much navel gazing as to whether we need rules or not. -- Colin (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose delist and replace. Charles (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree with Charlesjsharp and others above. Atsme 📞 15:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:HVB-Tower and Mae West, Munich, June 2017 -02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 13:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 02:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - This is a fine photo, and I'm likely to support it, but I'd like to know why the trees on the right and left sides are so unsharp. Is it because of motion blur, due to the 13-second exposure? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • yes, exactly. The trees in the middle are unsharp as well but the ones to the left and right are much nearer, so the motion blur is way more visible... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you.   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:A mountain seen while going Dhumba lake.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 11:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Iceshra - uploaded by Iceshra - nominated by Biplab Anand -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Biplab Anand (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice. --Yann (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Are those halos on the left, where the brown mountain in the foreground meets the white background?--Peulle (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support-- KennyOMG (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment And which mountains are those? Categories are missing, and the image title should also say so. I'd guess Nilgiri North and Tilicho left in the background (under the white cloud), but I don't know for sure. Lupo 13:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Reasonably well-done from a technical standpoint, but compositionally it doesn't stand out from so many of our other mountain landscapes. It feels, actually, like the right half of a possibly featurable panorama. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Further information about the motif are lacking. I´m not conviced with the composition. IMHO there ist too much empty blue sky. --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:2016.10.04.-04-Mannheim Vogelstang--Haussperling-Maennchen.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 10:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Just a   Comment. I don't think that the nature wants to expose eyes of (this kind of) birds to the sun. Also the area around the eyes is black so it has a reinforcing effect. --Hockei (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info New version with changed crop. --Hockei (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Lošmi (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - lovely! Atsme 📞 16:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The softness and delicacy may be an inadvertent result of uncertain processing, or they may be deliberate, but the end result is the same different take on this very common sort of image here. This way, it almost looks like what you see printed on the side of that cup your grandmother serves you tea in when you go to her house. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Silesian Beskids - hiking trial to Barania Góra peak 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 08:35:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

After reading other people point of view including agreement with Ikan I change my vote to   Neutral. --Hockei (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The contrasts between the sky, forest and crystaline snow gives sufficient wow factor for me. The depth of the image is enough to see the frost fog in the valleys far below.--Peulle (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per Puelle PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Something that never happen in South India; so I may be biased. Jee 03:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose - The technical quality of this photo is really high and it has a nice winter mood. I especially like the frosty trees and the pastel colors in the background. However, the crop on the upper right bugs me enough to mildly oppose a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - love the layered background on the left, the colors and sparkle of the snow. The crop could have started at the gap just past the first few trees on right as the overall beauty of the picture is more to the left. Atsme 📞 16:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Martin; it was the nominator's good fortune that I first saw this on a particularly warm and humid day, in my own home, which by choice does not have air conditioning. Makes me want to go down to the basement, get skis or snowshoes, and enter it. I can practically feel the crispness of the air. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Museo de la Catedral de Quito, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 94-96 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 08:25:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  •   Info View of the Archiepiscopal library, located in the museum inside the Metropolitan Cathedral of Quito, located in the Historic Center of Quito, capital of Ecuador. The construction of the catholic temple began in 1562 and it was consecrated 10 years later. The collection of the library includes hundreds of works of theology and liturgy some of them from the 16th century and most from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. All by me, Poco2 08:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 08:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support great composition! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed, great composition, despite the table (?) at the right. --A.Savin 13:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
    A.Savin, that's not a table but the same surface you can see (or guess) also in the pictures. Again, no tripods where welcome and the lighting was not the best, so I had to look for a spot to put the camera. Poco2 17:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 16:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I wouldn't have realized the photo was taken without a tripod. It looks about as good as possible to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Peulle (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Atsme 📞 16:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Praha Spanish Synagogue Interior 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 06:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Gevlekte orchis. Orchis (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata) 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 04:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alternative, another versionEdit

 

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants #Family Orchidaceae .
  •   Info Spotted Orchid (Dactylorhiza maculata subsp. Maculata). Spotted Orchid is on the red list in the Netherlands. The blurred background is the natural habitat of the orchid.
  •   Support Atsme 📞 19:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging opposers to see if they like this version better: Hockei, Daphne Lantier, Ikan Kekek Atsme 📞 19:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Better, yes, but undecided on whether to support or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support this too. Jee 12:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Chase khar - چاسه خار (3).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2017 at 00:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Purana-Kadavoor-2017-06-03-002.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2017 at 14:07:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Río Ibar, Ribarice, Serbia, 2014-04-15, DD 02.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2017 at 05:32:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created & uploaded by Diego Delso - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this is a great photo, and I'd like to argue preemptively against any suggestion of cropping or retouching the photo so as to eliminate the garbage from the near left corner. I think it serves as both a contrast to the beautiful natural scene and a visual lesson to people to stop littering. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 06:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you Ikan! Poco2 08:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not seeing what is special here. Perhaps I am used to damp weather in Scotland. Bare trees, and not especially sharp image, with the lighting so diffused there is little contrast. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - To me, the mist is a feature, not a bug, but I also really like the the form, with its topography. But it's inescapable that scenes that are usual for any of us tend not to produce a feeling of wow, so I understand your reaction completely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The earthtones are lovely. Imagine traveling the road on the left. I've actually had similar adventures in the Andes, and several busses now have new button holes in the seats where this gal sat. Atsme 📞 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Calming and subtle. -- King of ♠ 03:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. I don't find the composition striking, it seems almost random, and the litter at the left front is distracting and discordant. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Colin. --Milseburg (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Daniel, "random" is the first (and only) word that pops in my head. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't find this kind of comments (towards nominator, author or supporters) particularly respectful Poco2 15:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Poco, I think you've been here long enough to not expect oppose votes to be sugar coated. Clearly some people, myself included, aren't "getting it". While I can see that you are looking up the winding river valley, so that's why you pointed the camera this way, the elements of the composition aren't quite fitting. There isn't really a focal point for the eye, hence perhaps the "random" comments. It isn't to my mind going beyond the snap any tourist might quickly take at a lay-by. Ikan's litter justification is really stretching photographic review excuses -- one could say that sort of thing about any view spoiled in some way. Considering the continuous stream of nominations from you, Poco, the fact that this image is three years old tells me it isn't really one you regard as among your finest. You take great photos, so I don't know why Ikan has to scrape the barrel here. -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Because I obviously don't agree with you that I'm "scraping the barrel". Nor do I agree in the slightest that there's anything "random" about the form. It's good for you to give a clear analysis of your opinion, but going further and assuming that others (7 people so far) couldn't possibly have a different, thought-through reaction, which is the way I (mis-?)read your comment above, is not reasonable. As for the garbage, if you don't like the idea of it as an object lesson, my response would be simply that it's there and it's part of what I consider a great composition. I don't go by the original ancient Roman ideal of landscapes as an idealized version of countryside views for the exclusive use of people who live in cities, too far away from the countryside to view it from their homes or properties. We're well beyond that time now, having gone through a series of Modernist periods. As you know, I tend to judge photographic compositions to a large degree as I judge paintings: I move my eyes around the picture frame to experience a linear arabesque. In this case, I also enjoy the contours of the topography, yes, the trees, the mist - all of it. It doesn't speak to you. As we say in the U.S., that's what makes horse racing (maybe you have the same expression in Scotland). I saw this photo relatively recently at QIC, and Poco has a very long backlog of photos that he'd like to be nominated for FP, so I doubt that your deduction about the implications of the photo being 3 years old really holds water, but of course Poco can address that himself if he so chooses. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan only five people, other that yourself and Poco, supported it and four oppose. That's a pretty dreadful ratio for FPC. Considering Pocos good photos tend to get 10 solid support within hours, this is certainly and without any question "scraping the barrel" when it comes to Poco nominations. If this is really the best that you can come up with, of all the images by Commons FPC regulars, and by others we are less familiar with, then I rather despair for the project. I think you misunderstand Poco's list of potential FPs. It isn't, as I understand it, "photos that he'd like to be nominated for FP", but ones he's at some point in time when he uploaded them, considered might be worth a punt some day. Having sat on this one for three years, it certainly and without any question, isn't one of the ones that jump out at him and say "pick me pick me" every time he looks at it. It's all very nice for Poco to get a free extra vote when you nominate from his backlog. The rest of FPC crowd, who mostly nominate their own works, have to make do with earning six other supports rather than five. It isn't as though there's a shortage of great images on Commons that haven't been nominated yet. I don't, for the record, assume others "couldn't possibly have a different, thought-through reaction", that's why I wrote "some people..aren't getting it", rather than "anyone with eyes in their head can obviously see that...". FP is about picking the finest, not just working through some list of images Poco has likely seen and passed on many times already.
Ikan, I rather suspect you could pick the "random file" link on the left side of Commons, and make an argument about how you really like the image, how you love to move your eyes about it while experiencing a linear arabesque, and that the glaring defects serve as as some kind of lesson to society. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, will keep it short. First, the fact (and that is one) that oppose votes are not sugar coated is fine to me. Being rude or disrespectful to nominators, author, etc. is different and having been like this for a while doesn't mean that it is fine and we should keep on doing it. My opinion.
Ikan didn't get this image from my "FP candidates by User:Poco a poco" category (as it isn't included there), but, as he said, saw it recently in QI. I guess that the story is straightforward: he saw it, he liked it, he nominated it. Period. I do have a big backlog of images where I see some potential to FP (the cat mentioned earlier), some of them I take back later, some I propose, I do not definitely believe that everything in that cat should become FP. I recently nominated a picture from Machu Picchu, 2 years old, 20 votes, all supports and a picture from Cambodia, 4 years old, 12 votes, all supports. Therefore I don't necessarily see a link between the age of the nominated pictures and the likelihood to become FP, the barrel is probably still half full...Poco2 22:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Whoaaaa, my apologies! Didn't want to start a firestorm but yes, I think the scene depicted is pretty random (in the most non-offensive way possible), especially in in light of your other work that pops up on FPC. I disagree about the extra vote argument, 95% of your pics don't need it and the rest don't pass even with - save for the odd exception every once in a blue moon. And I hope the barrel is more than half full and glad to see you didn't stop uploading after the "Arabic-incident". :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Colin, I'm not an "extra vote" just because I chose to nominate a photo, and it strikes me as really disrespectful for you to imply that I pick photos completely randomly and don't have any standards (your "random file" stuff, which to me is really nasty crap, my friend). You should instead have enough respect to view my standards as different from yours even if you violently disagree with them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Ikan, I didn't say you picked photos at random. I don't suggest you have no standards. What I am suggesting is that you are perfectly capable of taking a "meh" image that has some likable qualities, persuading yourself that it is great, and writing some arty nonsense about linear arabeques and how you love moving your eyes about the image. We've seen that line on many failed nominations. The fact that photo wasn't framed well enough to avoid the lay-by garbage is simply a photographic failure. Your nomination excuse for it is really rather desperate.
Poco, you know I regard you as one of the finest photographers here, and your record at FP confirms that. Kenny's vote was blunt but was about the image, nothing more, and to claim it was "disrespectful" implies you want some sugar coating and for us all to praise you before delivering the bad news. Do we have to begin every oppose with "With the greatest respect to my fellow reviewers who have supported this image, and to this fine photographer who's work I have often praised, I'm sorry to say ...". I didn't mention the backlog until Ikan's rather strange comment that "Poco has a very long backlog of photos that he'd like to be nominated for FP" which, the way it is worded, suggests it is maintained for the purpose of attracting bonus nominations by others, which I doubt is your intention. The fact that you can find some old images in your backlog that do well at FPC doesn't really form any kind of scientific argument against the fairly obvious reasoning that great images will tend to be nominated quickly and weak images sit on the pile (which has 458 images). Poco, if you want to show respect to your fellow contributors here, who tirelessly review your images in a constant stream, who don't always word their reviews as carefully/respectfully as you might want, then you could vote at FPC. Last time you voted on an image that didn't have "DD" in its filename was February. -- Colin (talk)
Colin, I understand your point better, but really, my remark is "rather desperate"? If so, what about my remark on the nomination just above this, which looks likely to be very quickly voted in by overwhelming consensus? I'm still pretty annoyed at you, as I think of all kinds of great art that's very frank and doesn't avoid the ugly parts of reality (not an "excuse" or "arty nonsense", but decades of modernist works going all the way back to the frank depictions of factories and smokestack emissions in Impressionist art, and I don't have to go further afield than "Impression:Aube" for that), but I do respect your right to have a strong and vociferous opinion and paid a lot of attention to things you told me before, with improved results you seem to be ignoring. Remember, though, that you get more flies with honey than with vinegar... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Your remark on the nomination above is fine: you aren't "desperately" trying to turn a defect into a strength, and are pretty honest about the weaknesses. And you know I approve of nominators giving an explanation of why they think the image is worth featuring. I'm all for depicting the "ugly parts of reality" but if we're discussing "art" then really it has to be the intention of the artist and then in this forum at least, for there to be some consensus that the artist has achieved that aim. I really honestly don't think Poco took this photo of the low cloud in a valley in Serbia in order to make some social point about people leaving litter in lay-byes. -- Colin (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I now understand and take your point on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Garaio - Puente de Azúa 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 20:33:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 20:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Atsme 📞 21:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - The straight shadows help the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good composition --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Livio. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 04:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice enough composition, though quite a common one for a bridge. The vanishing point isn't even close to being centred, which is quite important for this kind of composition. So I don't think this reaches the FP bar. -- Colin (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hi Colin, thank you for your comment. In fact, I see that there is potential for improvement. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Colin. I trust, however, that the irregularity of the railing lines is as is and not an effect of the photography? Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin, the lack of symmetry is distracting. -- King of ♠ 03:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Colin. --Karelj (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Arch of Constantine at Night (Rome).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 18:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Monuments and memorials
  •   Info The Arch of Constantine (Italian: Arco di Costantino) is a triumphal arch in Rome, situated between the Colosseum and the Palatine Hill. It was erected by the Roman Senate to commemorate Constantine I's victory over Maxentius at the Battle of Milvian Bridge in 312. Dedicated in 315, it is the largest Roman triumphal arch. The arch spans the Via triumphalis, the way taken by the emperors when they entered the city in triumph. All by -- LivioAndronico (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 20:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent Atsme 📞 21:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose First I wanted to support this nomination, but after looking closer at it I'm not really convinced any more. When looking at the fence you can see that the whole picture is leaning backwards (and/or to the right) a little bit. The fence should be rectilinear. Also, there is a part at the right side missing which spoils the symmetry. Another thing is that I can see a strange halo (looks like banding) around the arch when looking at it at 100% size although I have to admit that I'm not sure whether it's a problem with my display. Maybe someone with a calibrated display can have a closer look at it? Generally I would prefer a blue hour shot. The darkness of the night makes the trees merge with the sky. They would contrast better if the sky was a little bit brighter. Then we have the usual problem that the file description is not sufficient and a geotag is missing. --Code (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Code -- Wolf im Wald 00:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Atsme. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I love this arch, but the strong white light and particularly the shadows are unfortunately very distracting to me. I realize that there may be no way to avoid these shadows in a night photo, which could mean that I don't think an FP night photo of this arch is possible, though of course I take everything case by case. But I think the main point is to get a great photo of the arch in which all of one side is optimally visible, and that probably requires more even light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. I suggest trying from this angle which will make the fence less dominant and is a better angle for showing the 3D form. I agree that blue hour is better, though Ikan may be right that the artificial lighting isn't great and you are stuck with it. We're not seeing much detail of the artwork on the arch, and our FPs often do show more detail than this. So a stitched image may be the way for you to get more detail from your camera. -- Colin (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Jupiter’s Clouds of Many Colors.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2017 at 07:38:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
  •   Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS/Gerald Eichstädt /Seán Doran uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice shot but I don't like the tight composition on the left side. -- Wolf im Wald 13:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Wolf. Daphne Lantier 20:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support agree with Ikan - full shot is pretty amazing. Atsme 📞 21:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop is awful. --Hockei (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Hockei. There's no reason for the dead space (ahem) on the top and bottom. Just because so many smartphone photos are necessarily framed this way, it doesn't mean photos by space probes, many of which were launched long before smartphones, have to look like that too. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I'd support if the top and bottom were cropped tighter.--Peulle (talk) 20:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Parboiled rice with chicken, peppers, cucurbita, peas and tomato.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2017 at 20:41:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ciconia ciconia - Heidelberg.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2017 at 17:19:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Kla road1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2017 at 04:50:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info The road passes the last settlement, Khardung village (right), before snaking up the mountains to the "world's highest motorable pass" Khardung La. (It is actually the world's 4th-5th highest such pass.) This road is of strategic importance to the Indian army for supplying troops at the Siachen Glacier and is motorable year around since 1976, thanks to the Border Roads Organization's efforts. Khardung itself is situated at 4000m; the snowy peaks rise ~2900m above the village. All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Very well-done generally, but dark areas up front are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question No exif data? --Hockei (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 5D mk1, 35mm, f/8, 1/1250, Iso 200. -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I mean I'd like to see the original exifs in the image you removed.   --Hockei (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Why does it matter? -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 07:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The village nestled in the foothills, the snowcapped peaks, the contrasting shadows, +tech quality - I like! Atsme 📞 19:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ladakh! Jee 03:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Moderate   Support - I've lived with this photo for a while, and I've decided that a combination of the really interesting landforms and the general sharpness of the photo (though not quite as much on the village in the background) with the importance of the terrain being depicted merits this photo being featured. And I kind of like the shadows in the foreground. They and the rather small amount (but just enough) of sky are a nice change as they are well shot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Ikan, I totally agree with you about the shadows: the one on the left, in the foreground, helps me to focus on the village and the peaks in the background and the shadows on the right make the otherwise barren brown rocks a bit more interesting to look at. -- KennyOMG (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Aussicht Kleiner Gleichberg Süd.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 10:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View from the stone run on the summit of Kleiner Gleichberg southward. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)}}
  •   Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Neptuul (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm not jaded at what an achievement this is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 03:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Half the image is of rubble, with the piles on the left and right dominating the image. 2000px vertical is not very high resolution for a panorama and this image suffers from lack of detail in the distant hill and trees are just green smudges. There's not enough sky. When one looks out at a landscape from a high viewpoint, one sees a lot of sky, so the vertical crop here is unnatural. I like the sunlight/rain on the right side of the distance, though the effect isn't strong. The left distance is just dark and gloomy and little detail. A central crop concentrating on the hill would be a better image, though far too low resolution for FP. -- Colin (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Again I think you're not right, Colin. A large resolution doesn't make a FP. Sky can be seen everywhere. It´s not necessary to blow up this image with content not characteristic for this location. I also diasgree with your proposed cut. The "rubble" (en:stone run) is characteristic for this mountain. It would be totaly wrong, to exclude right this. Especially regarding the use in any wiki-projekt. --Milseburg (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
While a large resolution doesn't make an FP, a low resolution most certainly does diminish it's chances. Given that 2Mp was the short dimension when cameras were 6MP, and was the long dimension when cameras didn't even reach 2MP, there is little excuse for a modern panorama being so short height-wise. Stick your camera in portrait orientation and get a larger height. This is about our finest work, and yet you keep nominating images that have no composition qualities that IMO put them among our finest works. Simply rotating the camera around the tripod head on a high viewpoint in Germany is not sufficient to make an FP. Where's the "great light", where's the "great composition", where's the "superb detail". There isn't anything here that makes me think this is close to FP I'm afraid. I'm quite familiar with mountains and very typically the rough ground / stones at one's feet is not photogenic, and isn't generally part of the view one wants to include to a great degree. It's all about deciding what to include and frame in your picture, and these panorama just seem to lack any compositional/framing decision-making at all. Have a look at the FP category. There are images there that pop off the screen and make you go wow. That's FP. Not this I'm afraid. This is just a view. -- Colin (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Colin, we keep having different opinions and preferences. In Germany a lot of summits are able to impress by itself. Obviously I'm more excited about this motifs than you. --Milseburg (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support pace Colin - but the image works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak support after reading Colin and Milseburg's exchange. The technical shortcomings are not as bad as some other images, and having hiked amid similar stone runs I totally understand that it's the real subject of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Gurk Domplatz 1 Torturm Innenseite Stoeckl Loggia mit Saeulenaufgang 13062017 9423.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2017 at 05:29:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Done @Daniel Case: Apparently I exaggerated the processing. I set tone and color rendition back to the original values. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  Support now. It looks so much better. Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I will support once you remove the dust spots - there are two light ones a bit to the left of the right margin near the top and there's also a really small one above the right side of the cloud. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - You're welcome. I think I still see a tiny spot above the right side of the cloud in the upper center of the picture and possibly one more tiny one near the top margin some ways to the right of that, but don't kill yourself fighting ghosts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Who ya gonna call? :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Dr. Peter Venkman most supposedly. And if not available, Dr. Egon Spengler. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- PumpkinSky talk 11:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 12:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a fan of the vertical shadows cast by the midday lighting. -- King of ♠ 23:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support And 7....i don't know what's the king's problem of the shadows.....--LivioAndronico (talk) 18:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Valašské muzeum v přírodě - Valašská dědina 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2017 at 13:17:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


Contestations en coursEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Tokyo Metro and JR East at Ochanomizu, Tokyo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 19:48:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Guanajuato pano1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:43:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   InfoGuanajuato is a city and the capital of the state of the same name. Situated in a narrow valley, most of its narrow and winding streets are alleys that cars cannot pass through, and some are long sets of stairs up the mountainsides. Many of the city’s thoroughfares are partially or fully underground. The historic center has numerous small plazas and colonial-era mansions, churches and civil constructions built using pink or green sandstone. Historically Guanajuato was an influential mining city that, in the 18th century, accounted for two-thirds of the world’s silver production. All by KennyOMG -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The shadow in the bottom is distractiong and the image needs a better stitching, in some areas it is tilted in one direction and in some other in the other direction. Quality, on the other side is very good. Poco2 18:56, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Can you mark/tag some zig-zag tilting areas please? -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Guildfordia yoka delicata 01.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 18:18:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Capivara(Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 17:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Arara Azul no Pantanal.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 17:26:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  •   Info created and uploaded by Leonardo Ramos - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support New category: macro-bird-photography! (Focal plane seems to be a bit closer than the eyes but because of that most of the body feathers are in perfect focus and show wonderful detail so it's not a prob I think.) -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 19:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good, but please fix the categories, unless I'm mistaken, this is a photo of a bird not a park. --cart-Talk 20:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There is a kind of halo along the left border of the wing on the right side --Llez (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:EstatuaFliaAlzaga-jun2017edited.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 12:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Heiliggrabkapelle -- 2017 -- 0015-21.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 07:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There were lights behind the wall and the paintings are pale. --XRay talk 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Ah, so they've faded. I'll go ahead and support. Nice job given the conditions.PumpkinSky talk 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Nevertheless I'll check for improvements. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 15:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Heiligengrabe, Kloster Stift zum Heiligengrabe, Abtei, Dachgeschoss -- 2017 -- 9918-24 (bw).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2017 at 04:52:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
  •   Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 04:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info There is a colored version of this image too. IMO the black-and-white one is the better one. It emphasizes the structure and the room. --XRay talk 04:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 04:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I am currently reading "Black & White Photography: The timeless art of monochrome in the post-digital age" by Michael Freeman (only £5.99 in the Kindle edition which looks great on my phone/PC). Freeman extensively discusses "why b&w", and this image is a great example. -- Colin (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Colin: didn't notice he had a new one out: thanks for the info → paperback pre-ordered. --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support An irresistible storage of angles and lines. --cart-Talk 09:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Agree, the b&w version is better. Lovely. Nice job. PumpkinSky talk 11:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support excellent bw conversion --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral blacks are too harsh for the mood I think. -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Tugboats Boss and Svitzer Hymer leaving Lahälla 4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 19:39:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
  •   Info Tugboats Svitzer Hymer and Boss in Brofjorden setting out to assist a tanker entering the fjord and the oil port at Preemraff oil refinery. The fjord is so deep that the tankers have no problem going right up to the berths and cliffs along the shore, but when the wind is strong (as it was this day), an empty tanker lying high in the water can drift when it's going at a low speed. That's where the tugboats come in. The tugboats are stationed at Lahälla, across the fjord from the oil port. I was there to photograph Ryxö island for sv-wiki, so I had a front row seat and camera ready when the boats set out. I got a whole series of shots and I like this one best because of the relatively clean background and also because the distance from the camera makes the two boats appear in more similar size in the photo. There is something very wow-y seeing such powerful boats making good speed across the water, even if you can't hear the sound in the photos. All by me, -- cart-Talk 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 19:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I can almost hear them. Atsme 📞 20:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good arrangement, with uncluttered background. -- Colin (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Love it, especially all the rich vibrant blues. PumpkinSky talk 20:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jee 02:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Sorry, but the focus is a bit too soft for me, especially on the top half of the left boat.--Peulle (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Please don't use the {{weak oppose}} or similar templates as the Bot can't count these. Use the piped version of {{o}} and {{s}} instead. I have fixed that for you now. :) As for the focus, well, in this case it was either sharper boats when they were closer but with a cluttered background, or boats further away with better background but softer focus. See the series on the file page. I chose the better compo. --cart-Talk 12:24, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know that about the bot. Thanks.--Peulle (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Photographers don't often take a stern view of boats (I guess they like them too much  ). Good for you for making this one work so well. And how helpful that one of them has its IMO painted on its stern! Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! The stern is sort of the "business end" of a tugboat so more interesting than the bow. I also like the "going away on a mission" feeling you get from a stern view. --cart-Talk 20:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Winter Landscape with Brabrand Church.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 19:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Landscape
  •   Info In this sunny June weather, here's a lovely winter landscape painting to cool you down. Painting by Christian David Gebauer. Photo all by me. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- of course -- --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - what Christmas cards are made of...Atsme 📞 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Looks like Currier and Ives PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Love those old days! Jee 03:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  • edges are seen on left and right side. --Mile (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
    • None of the frame is visible. There is nothing more to trim without losing painting. -- Colin (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
      • It could be some shadow from the frame, that is often a problem at museums. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't see a way to avoid this without removing the painting from the frame. It isn't imo intrusive as the painting is quite dark. If our artwork experts think it is fine to trim a pixel off the left and right, then I can do that, otherwise I'd prefer to show as much of the painting as possible. -- Colin (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice cooling motif. It is captured very well so that you can see the brush strokes but they are not lighted in a way that disturbs the painting. Knowing how meticulous you are, I have no doubt the WB and color correspond with the original even, if they are a bit different from the other photos of this painting. --cart-Talk 09:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good work, you can even see the cracks in the paint.--Peulle (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daphne Lantier 18:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Elvis Presley, Delbert Sonny West, and Jerry Schilling meeting Richard Nixon.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2017 at 15:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info created by Ollie Atkins, chief White House photographer, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Grainy, but cannot be retaken... I think this one is the best picture of the meeting. I did very little restoration. Please tell me if you think more is needed. -- Yann (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)