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 peut améliorer ou dégrader la qualité de l'image. Une faible profondeur de champ peut 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:Vista de Benidorm, España, 2014-07-02, DD 63.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2018 at 10:19:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info View of Benidorm, turistic capital of the Costa Blanca (literally White Coast) in Land of Valencia, Spain. The shot was taken from the Cross of Benidorm, located on the summit of the Sierra Helada. Benidorm, is a town with 73,000 inhabitants throughout the year but with a peak of over half a million in the summer season. It's the third town with the most concentration of tall buildings in Europe, after London and Milan, whereas in Spain, Benidorm is positioned third, behind Barcelona and Madrid in the total number of skyscrapers. Nevertheless, Benidorm has the most high-rise buildings per capita in the world. Poco2 10:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 10:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I found a light dust spot and tried my best to mark its location. Other than that, this is a beautiful photo, with excellent light, background haze and clouds, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Cassia fistula (Golden rain tree) flowers.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2018 at 02:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sargent, John Singer (RA) - Gassed - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 19:52:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#History
  •   Info The evocative painting Gassed by American painter John Singer Sargent tells a horrific story in a single image; the story of wounded soldiers in World War 1, wounded by the terrible new weapon of poison gas. By not going down to a personal level, depicting a single injured soldier, the image instead focuses on the feeling of comradeship between men who shared the terrible fate. Uploaded by ygEoGPGLZRQzeg at Google Cultural Institute (Google Art Project) - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, great painting! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Needs a better crop. Disturbing lines, parts of the frame on the right and the bottom right -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, I am not allowed to crop images I didn't upload.--Peulle (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Torre Spasskaya, Kremlin, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 09-11 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 19:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Notre Dame in a february evening.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 19:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Panorama of Toledo at sunset. View from the south.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 07:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Benh's suggestion is much more interesting. I suspect there might have been a few new buildings since El Greco's 'fantasy' panorama! Charles (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the photo of Toledo I linked to was taken only a few years ago, and in any case, the buildings El Greco painted and their location on a hill are still there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not attracted to "effectively" processed images, they too distort reality, especially colors. For encyclopedias are more characteristic of the reflection of the real world. Photos in general cannot opposing to painting masterpieces, because their methods and technologies, and most importantly, the tasks, are too different. -- Ввласенко (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Two photos have been provided to you as comparisons. Not enough of the old city is in this photo, and the composition isn't compelling. And you think FPC in Commons is only about encyclopedias? I think that would be FPC in Wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately in my view Ikan Kekek is right. Commons FP is not at all about encyclopaedic value. Otherwise most of the FP candidates here would not make FP. Charles (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quite nice, but a bit soft.--Peulle (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Plumeria (Frangipani) flowers.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 06:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Though I tried to make it blurred enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Delft, de Oostpoort RM11968 foto11 2016-03-13 10.32.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 23:14:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Centro histórico de Skagway, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-18, DD 29.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 21:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Railroad Building in traditional wooden style, Skagway Historic District, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poco2 21:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Maybe the lighting isn't ideal, but I think this deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Why choose to take a photo with this sky? 10:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) --Poco2 12:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Charlesjsharp:: do you have a recipe how to order this or that weather? The west coast of Alaska is one of the rainiest places on earth, I was lucky that it was not raining then. If you are asking for good weather then either you are extremely lucky when you are there or you have to be there often. Poco2 12:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Poor sky conditions is a problem we all face, but then if the conditions are not right we won't get an FP! Look at this eagle. Everything right for an FP except the sky. Charles (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That's clear to me, when you said "choose" it sound to me like if that sky had been my choice. --Poco2 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I think Charles is only saying that you must accept that some trips just won't get you an FP. And yes we've all been there. It is you who chose to nominate it despite that. - Benh (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a very good QI for sure but I'm simply not wowed enough --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sky, isnt so big, 8-9 MPx from around 50 ? --Mile (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI for sure but the cloudy sky prevents the wow here (Although it was in the uppermost decile of the WLM USA submissions for last year). Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose With this sky, there'd have to be something else to wow me. Detail? Nope. This is only 8MP (why Poco?). Amazing building? Nope. The signs "The Train Shoppe" and "Railroad Building". Are American's really so dumb that they need to be told what is a building and what is a shop? Plus the word "shoppe" was considered a deliberately quaint spelling even in 1900. There are modern electric fans in the windows of this olde worlde scene. -- Colin (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I uploaded a bigger version, but anyhow, that's all folks Poco2 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Rifugio Friedrich August - Gable.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 17:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting and sort of surreal. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting, but sort of odd. Charles (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Really cool! :) The paragliders adds to this "alien" landscape since they look a bit like several moons in some fantasy landscape. This could be the setting for a Star Wars sequel. --cart-Talk 10:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support this is very nice, good eye for compo --Mile (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I thought about this for a while; it's interesting, to be sure, but somehow there's something missing. I think it's the fact that it's neither an image of the house nor the paragliders; the house is only in the foreground, the gliders hardly visible. So in conclusion the image doesn't quite work for me.--Peulle (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Like Peulle. Composition just seems a bit forced and the paragliders are rather small. I can see why some people love it, though, and it makes a welcome change from ordinary mountain/building images. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Monasterio de San Jorge, Perast, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 21.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 16:27:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Isabella Lövin signing climate law referral.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 14:06:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1990- Now
  •   Info created by Schyffel - uploaded by Axel Pettersson (WMSE) - nominated by W.carter
    The now famous photo where Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin signs a climate law referral, witnessed by two State Secretaries and members of her staff. With only women (including one who is visibly pregnant) it is a very non-typical government photo. It is also obvious that the minister is directing her attention to the camera and whoever is watching the photo. It became noticed around the world since it was published only days after the publication of a photo in which Donald Trump signed an executive anti-abortion order (the Mexico City Policy) surrounded by men. Small nice fact: Contrary to most photographers working with government-related material, this photographer is also a Commoner and Wikipedian (former board member of Wikimedia Sweden). -- cart-Talk 14:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 14:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Absolutely. -- Colin (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot! Yann (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the nice soft curve the tops of their heads make. Not something you usually see in group photographs. Good call on Johann's part getting down and choosing a different angle from the one such photographs are usually taken from. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I was wondering if someone would notice the curve :-), it matches the curve of the table so that the ceiling becomes like a "mirror image" of the table. An unusual and very good photo. --cart-Talk 20:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Am I seeing tilt or perspective distortion? Charles (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely correct perspective was probably not what was most important for the photographer when creating this photo. Any perspective correction would completely ruin the comopsition and it's not important to do such in a photo like this. It is better to have the people depicted in a good way than worry about the proportions of a partial painting in the background. (See almost any photo from the Oval Office.) Like with other famous photos, we have to live the inherent imperfections in them. --cart-Talk 10:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no "distortion" and the "perspective" is "correct". If you stood where the camera was, looking with one eye, this is what you'd see. There are conventions surrounding architectural and interior building photography that the camera should be level, perpendicular to the facing wall, and the angle of view not too extreme. They are conventions that tend to produce pleasing results for photographs where the subject has straight lines at 90° to each other. Here, the subject is a group of people, and if you are concentrating on the verticals of the door or painting, then you aren't really looking properly. We had this complaint at File:Khandoba temple Pune.jpg, where the subject is the worshipers, and it went on to win 1st prize in WLM. Where do you look in this photo: File:Marilyn Monroe photo pose Seven Year Itch.jpg ;-) -- Colin (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please don't tell me that I'm not "really looking properly". That's patronising. In this image the camera is not "perpendicular to the facing wall". Easily corrected. An important image, but not FP. Charles (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Charles, could you consider, perhaps, that you are wrong? Enough neutrality: reviews like this are embarrassing. Please go to Pete Souza's Flickr Stream and examine the photos. Some are level, many are not. Many of his greatest photos are not. It is telling that this photo was published as-is by newspapers ([1], [2], [3], [4], etc) but when reviewed at FPC, we ended up with this rotated crop. Only on Commons does anyone worry that the door frame is not vertical. Only on Commons. *sigh*. The picture editors at all these newspapers [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] didn't feel the need to "correct" the verticals before publishing the photo we are reviewing here. Anyone here taken a photo that's gone viral, viewed by millions, and published in newspapers round the world? No, thought not. So a bird and insect photographer thinks all the world's newspaper photo editors, and Souza, arguably the best political event photographer of this century, are making a newbie, easily corrected, mistake? You are not really looking properly. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "No, thought not."? Wrong actually, Colin. One of my 'bird and insect photographs' was used by the Indian Postal Services on a postage stamp and so has been viewed by many more people than this nominated image. But that's beside the point and mentioned only in response to Colin's rant. I didn't write the FP guidelines which state "Images should not be unintentionally tilted". We are not a newspaper. Voters here are not newspaper editors. And Colin, you should not conclude that I can only take insect and bird images, just because I choose to only submit animal photos to Wikimedia. Charles (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your stamp, Charles, but it isn't actually what I meant or said. Your photo didn't "go viral". People didn't think it so meaningful that they forwarded it to their friends with a comment. This image achieved notability -- it was talked about as a photograph, not as so many pixels. Various, independent, newspaper picture editors selects it as a newsworthy image. It wasn't discussed because artistically or technically it was great, though it is perfectly fine, but for what it said. So, no, I don't think anyone where has taken a photo that meant anything. Not a diddly squat. Your bird stamp is a great achievement, but isn't a comment on Trump vs Lövin approach to government, or anything else. This photo is great because of what it says, not because of any of the tedious factors listed in our FPC guidelines. This is just a repeat of the Obama "is my hair like your hair" photo, where Commons embarrases itself by looking at pixels and not the picture. We fail to reliably recognise great photos. If the FP guidelines are being followed so rigidly by some, and you are not alone in becoming a robot wrt such things as noise or CA, then it truely is time to scrap them. They are, in my experience, only ever mentioned by folk defending wrongheaded reviews. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Womens changing climate, ideal IKEA shot from north, no males at all. Bad quality but very intersting compo, more interpretation. --Mile (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Manelolo (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:AA gun firing during Continuation War.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2018 at 21:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info My first candidate. I'll leave it to more professional evaluators on the technical aspects etc. but somehow this picture mesmerized me; created by Sot.virk. Tauno Norjavirta - uploaded by Manelolo - nominated by Manelolo -- Manelolo (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Manelolo (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Historically significant, and quite interesting, but it's too hard to see anything clearly in the image for me to vote for it.--Peulle (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    A chitchatty remark: That's what made it interesting to me. Pretty much only the barrel of the gun is sharp, otherwise everything is trembling due to the shockwave (I suppose?). Manelolo (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)*  Oppose A very interesting photo, I can see why it intrigues you. You could guess that the very exact triple exposure is a result of the ground shaking when the gun fired. Unfortunately it is in rather poor condition with scratches, dust and spots, and I would suggest that you restore it the same way many other FPs of historical photos have been and re-nominate it after that. --cart-Talk 11:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Might do that in the future. Manelolo (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info per W.carter I ended up retouching the pic with GIMP to clear dust, scratches, tears etc. as well as cropped the top slightly to remove a "disturbing" light in the upper right corner. I uploaded the new version over the old file, hopefully that doesn't mess the nomination! Manelolo (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, no. For getting that FP feeling, I'd be looking for an image where you can still see what's going on - like this one.--Peulle (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Ha, I feel you! For me, a shot like that is too clinical to conduce any awe or sense of it being real (like a Formula 1 pic without any blur). Manelolo (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, we've had grainy photos, historical photos, camera shake photos, B&W photos and restored photos here, so why not one that includes all of these aspects. :) --cart-Talk 10:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:In the mood. Veteran at Belgian National Day. Brussels, 2012.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2018 at 09:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Helsinki Olympic Stadium Tower.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 15:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info - all by me -- СССР (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support although I think it would be even better cropped in on the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A hunch of crop on the sides might be better, but I like the simplicity and equal amounts of contrast between blue and white as well as the symmetry of the shadows. Pleasant to look at. Manelolo (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis rudis) female 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 12:16:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"This video contains content from Warner Chappell, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." Perhaps the surviving Ramones should use that as the basis for a song lyric Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I have no problem viewing it in Sweden. --cart-Talk 12:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@W.carter: Oh, don't worry about that, you couldn't have known. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Seventh Angel BoE-2012-4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 06:57:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Djhé - uploaded by Djhé - nominated by Djhé -- Djhé (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Djhé (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice artistic photo, it has a mood and strength to it that I really like. --cart-Talk 11:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not really liking the strong pattern noise, which has been emphasised by the processing. The hand is blurred and the aspect-ratio/crop just isn't working for me. If we're going to put up with the compromises that result from shooting a live act (high noise, weird colours from lighting, narrow DoF, etc) then I'd like to see the live act. Here is just a B&W photo of hands holding a guitar, which one could create with any anonymous model in the studio with much more pleasing results. -- Colin (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but there is always a je-ne-sais-qoui part/mood to a real live concert photo that is hard to duplicate in a studio shot. --cart-Talk 13:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I did a Google image search from the file description page and nearly every b&w image returned included the artists's head. Without that, there's no identity and no life to this "live performance". Many of the search results also are more dynamic in pose/action, whereas this is a very classic guitar hold with no apparent movement. The landscape format makes me think the head is cropped off, though it is more likely the camera was just held that way. -- Colin (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Mmmh. FWIW, for me it is very apparent that this is a live performance. "[A]ny anonymous model" won't do for this kind of thing, you'll need an actual guitar player for this or it'll look utterly fake. But I see your point regarding the crop – and I think it could possibly help to crop even more on the top and right. Regarding the noise, I wonder how it would look like had it been shot on actual black & white film (something like Delta 3200 pushed a stop or two). I'm still undecided … --El Grafo (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • El Grafo, you're going to tell me now that the models in "Addicted to Love" aren't actual guitar players ;-). Ok, "model" was probably the wrong word, but any modestly able guitar player would do. All I can see here is a white male in a dark t-shirt holding some random guitar. Everything that makes capturing a live performance worthwhile seems to be missing. -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin.--Peulle (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Black and noisy -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose cart makes a strong argument, but in the end I'm going to have to agree with Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:20180128 FIS NC Worldcup Seefeld Ilka Herola 850 2666.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 09:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It is nearly impossible to get a ski jumper 100% sharp while panning, but this is the best I could get. He would be sharp enough for the Newspapers at lower resolution and even Spiegel Online had a way less sharp panned ski jumper in their articles about the Olympic Games currently running in Korea so maybe this is wow enough to cover the missing sharpness. I'll give it a try. :) --Granada (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good for me. Yann (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent, IMO. Quite a clear picture of the subject under the circumstances, and I love the motion blur, which really helps me perceive speed and motion in an objectively static image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose You will not achieve sharpness using a shutter speed setting of 1/200 sec. (Image is downsized). Charles (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's absolutely necessary to use longer shutter speeds to do panning and downsizing is not forbidden. --Granada (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for a panning shot. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While I agree that getting it sharp is difficult, it's what's needed for me to vote in support of this.--Peulle (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness of skier is, to me, more than offset by the success of the panning. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:John Jay (Gilbert Stuart portrait).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 05:45:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ansel Adams and camera.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 05:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by J. Malcolm Greany - uploaded by Kaidor with modifications by User:Utzdman55 and Kaidor - nominated by Pine -- Pine 05:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pine 05:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Djhé (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support God historical value and quality considering the age.--Peulle (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Uncalibrated f/64. --Mile (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Claus 08:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The photographer photographed as he would have photographed his work. Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Does anyone know what is the camera kind/model? --Gnosis (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Malachite kingfisher (Corythornis cristatus stuartkeithi).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 23:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There is only one other FP of this species - it is a different subspecies - and it shows a different profile of one of the world's most beautiful birds. I'm surprised by your comment as you yourself have two FPs of an identical view Example 1 and Example 2. Never mind your two FPs of the same fuscia species Example 3 and Example 4. I realise also that you find that your sawing machine justifies 3 FPs! Do explain your reasoning please. Charles (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Answer: your comparison with my photo is not entirely up. Those pictures differ from each other. But of the kingfisher we have at least 5, of which 1 is with a fish in the mouth. The sawing machine is also very different from each other. I also commented on that. Once again your photo is perfect, but it looks like the other photos. But that is my personal opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I'll leave others to judge the differences between your images, but I don't think there are arbritrary limits on FPs. You may know, for instance, that there are 34 Featured pictures of Ardea, many of the same species - and herons are not more diverse and attractive than the kingfisher family - though I'm biased as I love kingfishers and they are so much more challenging to photograph than herons! Charles (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Love that beak ... I had to back away a little bit when I first saw this because I thought it was going to peck out the lens. I wish more of it could have been sharper but, I know, you do what you can with what you've got. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Louvre Cour Carree.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 22:34:31

Current

 

Proposed

 

  •   Info (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace - Disturbing ghosts in both, but the second version is far superior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace The new version is perspectively corrected. --Granada (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace because of corrected projection. However, I like the slightly darker blue in the old version more. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting... I never tried to tweak the projection of that one... Good job! - Benh (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment worth mentioning what exactly was corrected IMO. Only the opposite side was. As far as I can see, the left and right were untouched, and neither was the ground. - Benh (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Although I do like that darker blue sky as well. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Claus 08:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hmmm after a more thorough look, I'm seeing that the corners look a bit weird at full size... I wouldn't promote it but will keep neutral... - Benh (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Bad Kissingen Maxbrunnen 0417RM0270.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 21:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Krummhörn, Greetsiel, Hafen -- 2018 -- 1126.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 18:15:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Ships
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this photo may have trouble at FPC, but I love this complex composition, and also the contrast between the many lines on the right and the space on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Camera not level; mast cropped; buildings behind boats are distracting. The post and the rope make it very undramatic as all movement possibility is stuck. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin.--Peulle (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin; just too much going on here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:20180126 FIS NC WC Seefeld Eric Frenzel 850 9872.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 08:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Granada (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see why a banana in a portrait could be funny but here unfortunately it blends in too much with the shapes and colors of his clothes and equipment. Looking at the photo, you first see him, then you notice a smudge on his face, then you realize the smudge is a shadow and finally you realize it comes from something he is holding which turns out to be a banana. The pun gets lost. Sorry. --cart-Talk 10:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think it's funny and worth the time it takes to get the punch line. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'd go in and edit the image to reduce the shadow in his face, because I think it's disturbing.--Peulle (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree the banana is not very distinctive at small size, but as soon as you figure out what it is, then the gesture associated to the object gets obvious, and you immediately understand what's the intention of the stage. It becomes funny and this way reveals an interesting personality trait on Eric Frenzel. Technically very good picture, large and sharp -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Whether the joke works or not is beside the point; I really don't get wowed enough by this one for it to be FP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good sharp photo, but doesn't quite work to FP for me. -- Colin (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Castel del Monte BW 2016-10-14 13-15-58.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 07:48:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice building, but I'm unconvinced by this picture. I've written a note with a proposed crop and a criticism of the cutoff of the tree at the left margin, but I'm unsure whether I'd support the photo if you took the two steps I suggest. The sharpness of the building is a little soft. The light is growing on me, though, and the vegetation is interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:PIA17218 – A Farewell to Saturn, Brightened Version.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 02:48:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Astronomy

File:Dahlia cultivar (70093s).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 00:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info focus stacked image of a Dahlia cultivar in New York in October 2017. all by me — Rhododendrites talk |  00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice flower, good stacking and I also love dahlias with their velvety oh-so-hard-to-photograph texture, but the light is unappealing and with two partially cut buds, the composition could be better. Sorry. --cart-Talk 09:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per everything cart said, plus the posterization on the petal tips that happens so often in this kind of picture (And does it really fade from red to magenta like that?) Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Oh, thought I already withdrew this. Ah well. @Daniel Case: it does sort of fade, if I understand what you mean. See this other one from the same spot. @W.carter: I wasn't sure about this one, but actually figured I'd nominate it based on your QIC feedback (I may too easily take specific post-processing suggestions as hints when accompanying promotion) :) — Rhododendrites talk |  04:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Beachy Head March 2017 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2018 at 20:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Contre-jour photo of Beachy Head in in East Sussex, England. The cliff is the highest chalk sea cliff in Britain, rising to 162 metres (531 ft) above sea level. Created, uploaded and nominated -- Arild Vågen (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Well-captured light. --cart-Talk 09:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm not really wow'ed. The people are distracting too. --A.Savin 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'd afraid my eye is led round to the man with legs apart, looking at the camera. It's a shame but I think that near couple spoil the photo. The vapour trail is also a bit unfortunate, but could be cloned out. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not FP in composition for me. Charles (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Jaswant Zafar at Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2018 at 18:25:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, and probably valued image, but I'd like the person facing the camera for a FP. Also too much empty space. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI probably, but doesn't stand out enough for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. A technically very good shot, sharp and well lit, but I would also love it to see the person facing to the camera. --Granada (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose A really good portrait does not have to be someone facing the camera (there are plenty of profiles and half-profiles in Commons:Featured pictures/People), but unfortunately the side of the glasses ends up right over his eye and that is disturbing the photo. Otherwise it is really good and I like the space in the photo since it gives the man a chance to breathe. I'm also intrigued by seeing how the glasses are tucked into the folds of the turban. I haven't seen many people wearing such headdresses and I didn't realize that's how they work with glasses. --cart-Talk 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Kleinarl Jägersee 20180209.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 14:24:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tubla sun Juac cun Odles y Stevia Gherdëina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 11:40:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Italy
  •   Info created & uploaded by Wolfgang Moroder - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - The mountain on the upper right may be a bit disproportionately unsharp, but the overall quality is good and I find the composition quite interesting. (I don't like the category - it's not a purely natural scene and I wanted "Mountains" but couldn't figure out how to get that to link to anything.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Why is the tree in the middle of the picture? Charles (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - IMO, biscecting the picture nearly in two that way is a nice structural element and look. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Like the "lines" in the picture. --LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, not an interesting composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition too. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad, but not special enough to be FP. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The swiss pine and the sunburned logs of the barn give a special taste of alpine atmosphere --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice scenery, but big parts are unsharp. This camera definitely has better performance --A.Savin 23:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Kloster Banz vom Staffelberg 270136-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 07:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment a bit too centered? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but this light doesn't give me the wow. With so much nature being included, I'd need some more impressive lighting.--Peulle (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral To be there and see this view in real life is something special. Difficult to give it justice in a picture. If I have been there I had divided the view in 3 rows and 3 colums and put the building in same row but in colum #1 or #3 --LG Nyqvist (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment That depends on how you divide up the picture. The uppermost light in the clouds is the rest of the sunset far left outside the picture. The sky was simply too dark on the right side and in the foreground and on the right side there would be lights of the highway and other roads. But I will certainly find another solution next time.--
  • Ermell (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle, no wow for me. IMO the main object is also just a small part of the composition. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Color seems very off, and unsharpness in some areas more than the long exposure can forgive. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Bajorelieve1-monumentoaSanMartinMDP.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 02:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Reagan sitting with people from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in February 1983.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 13:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1980-1990
  •   Info In the series of images depicting significant historical events, this image is captioned: President Reagan meeting with Afghan Freedom Fighters to discuss Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. 2/2/83. During the Soviet invasion, the US provided financial and military support to the mujahedin, in a covert operation managed by the CIA. While this support was classified, the moral support was public - as this image shows.
  • Created by a White House photographer (possibly Tim Clary) Michael Evans, as stamped on the contact sheet, uploaded by Scewing, nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- I have done a minor fix: straightened and perspektive correction. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Most of the source links are broken. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Juliancolton: I did a little searching on the net and some digging and found that most of the files have just been moved to the Reagan Library website. I have put the new links on the file's page. One pdf lists all the rolls of film taken by the White House photographers during 1983, complete with contact sheets and everything (frame 32). Pretty cool! So the name of the photographer is no longer a mystery (it's Michael Evans) and you can apparently order larger files from the library if you want. A fun thing is looking at the other photos in this roll plus the one before and after so you get coverage of the whole event. This looks like a good site to visit to sort things out about photos from that era. --cart-Talk 23:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Historically significant. It seems like a hundred years ago that right-wingers and Evangelicals in the U.S. thought jihadists were righteous "freedom fighters", and of course they were fighting Soviet, rather than American occupation in those days. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose historically significant moment perhaps, and possibly high enough EV for FP on Wikipedia, but for me the EV doesn't carry it far enough. the capture seems rather unremarkable aside from just being in the room. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While hunting for sources for this photos, I've gone over it in by head and now I find that Rhododendrites has expressed my view rather eloquently. Sorry. --cart-Talk 12:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - agree that it has EV and would be a good candidate for en.WP but it doesn't quite meet the FP requirements here. Atsme 📞 16:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Car radio antenna on Mazda 323 compacted.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 10:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • For me, it adds a depth to the picture having a light side and a dark side, divided by the antenna. Having all of it evenly lit would have been boring and not given the image enough contrast. --cart-Talk 11:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I do not mind the darkness. I like the idea that is well executed. --Pugilist (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support these crystals with their dense texture. A macro lens would have made it gorgeous, but the quality is okay -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Creative!! Love the definition of the crystals. Atsme 📞 16:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer a little bit lighter. But a resourceful choice.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As per others -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Super cool AM (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Green crab traps with white buoys.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 06:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by WClarke - uploaded by WClarke - nominated by WClarke -- WClarke 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WClarke 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Too many blurry bars and other blurry things, uncomfortable to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Very arty, looks like the moon trapped. Unusual, intriguing and different. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Since I like odd, arty photos I wanted to get mesmerized by this but unfortunately that didn't happen. The lines are too many and too chaotic. The overcast light doesn't help as it makes all surfaces flat. Sorry. --cart-Talk 12:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan and Cart -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Turgot map of Paris, Kyoto University Library (delist)Edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 12:08:54

Delist
       
       
       
       
       
Replace
Sectional maps


  •   Info (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question I'm a little confused here. Is the proposal here that we delist one sectional map and replace it with one sectional map plus two one-file maps? --cart-Talk 12:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • W.carter, that's why the new set is better. --Paris 16 (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  • You're proposing to delist a single file in favor of a set? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You aren't showing an old set, only a single currently featured file that you want replaced with a set. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The old set is above.--Paris 16 (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info @Ikan Kekek:, @Daniel Case: and anyone else interested. The whole sets are displayed above. The twenty images that each of the sets consists of are just displayed in a grid of thumbs instead of one after the other, so they make up what looks like one single "picture" in the nomination. Depending on which square you click on in the "picture", you will be directed to a different file. If you open the editing window, you can see the name of each file listed. This nom is about replacing the 20 files of the original set with a new set of 20 files + two new files: one file that is all of the set images put together in a single file and one file that is a simplified version of that "merged" file with just the streets and major features and not all the little houses drawn. --cart-Talk 08:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I see. Thanks for explaining. The proposed substitution is better, even without considering the two additional files.   Delist and replace . Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --cart-Talk 09:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Thank W.carter!--Paris 16 (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace I'm in favour, having examined the maps in some detail. I love maps. I noticed a bit of a colour stain left of Rue d'Antin and below R. de Bourgogne - they should see to that. --Peulle (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace 22:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The above signature is apparently Daniel's. --cart-Talk 00:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
It is. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Claus 10:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info @Claus Obana: Please sign your vote to make it legit. --cart-Talk 09:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, W.carter.--Claus 14:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /Note: this candidate has several alternatives, thus if featured the alternative parameter needs to be specified. /FPCBot (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC))




Contestations en coursEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Vista de Benidorm, España, 2014-07-02, DD 63.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2018 at 10:19:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info View of Benidorm, turistic capital of the Costa Blanca (literally White Coast) in Land of Valencia, Spain. The shot was taken from the Cross of Benidorm, located on the summit of the Sierra Helada. Benidorm, is a town with 73,000 inhabitants throughout the year but with a peak of over half a million in the summer season. It's the third town with the most concentration of tall buildings in Europe, after London and Milan, whereas in Spain, Benidorm is positioned third, behind Barcelona and Madrid in the total number of skyscrapers. Nevertheless, Benidorm has the most high-rise buildings per capita in the world. Poco2 10:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 10:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I found a light dust spot and tried my best to mark its location. Other than that, this is a beautiful photo, with excellent light, background haze and clouds, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Cassia fistula (Golden rain tree) flowers.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2018 at 02:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Sargent, John Singer (RA) - Gassed - Google Art Project.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 19:52:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#History
  •   Info The evocative painting Gassed by American painter John Singer Sargent tells a horrific story in a single image; the story of wounded soldiers in World War 1, wounded by the terrible new weapon of poison gas. By not going down to a personal level, depicting a single injured soldier, the image instead focuses on the feeling of comradeship between men who shared the terrible fate. Uploaded by ygEoGPGLZRQzeg at Google Cultural Institute (Google Art Project) - nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, great painting! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Needs a better crop. Disturbing lines, parts of the frame on the right and the bottom right -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, I am not allowed to crop images I didn't upload.--Peulle (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Torre Spasskaya, Kremlin, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 09-11 HDR.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 19:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Notre Dame in a february evening.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 19:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Panorama of Toledo at sunset. View from the south.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 07:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Benh's suggestion is much more interesting. I suspect there might have been a few new buildings since El Greco's 'fantasy' panorama! Charles (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the photo of Toledo I linked to was taken only a few years ago, and in any case, the buildings El Greco painted and their location on a hill are still there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not attracted to "effectively" processed images, they too distort reality, especially colors. For encyclopedias are more characteristic of the reflection of the real world. Photos in general cannot opposing to painting masterpieces, because their methods and technologies, and most importantly, the tasks, are too different. -- Ввласенко (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Two photos have been provided to you as comparisons. Not enough of the old city is in this photo, and the composition isn't compelling. And you think FPC in Commons is only about encyclopedias? I think that would be FPC in Wikipedia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately in my view Ikan Kekek is right. Commons FP is not at all about encyclopaedic value. Otherwise most of the FP candidates here would not make FP. Charles (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quite nice, but a bit soft.--Peulle (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Plumeria (Frangipani) flowers.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2018 at 06:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Though I tried to make it blurred enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Delft, de Oostpoort RM11968 foto11 2016-03-13 10.32.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 23:14:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Centro histórico de Skagway, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-18, DD 29.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 21:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info Railroad Building in traditional wooden style, Skagway Historic District, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poco2 21:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 21:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Maybe the lighting isn't ideal, but I think this deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Why choose to take a photo with this sky? 10:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) --Poco2 12:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
    @Charlesjsharp:: do you have a recipe how to order this or that weather? The west coast of Alaska is one of the rainiest places on earth, I was lucky that it was not raining then. If you are asking for good weather then either you are extremely lucky when you are there or you have to be there often. Poco2 12:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Poor sky conditions is a problem we all face, but then if the conditions are not right we won't get an FP! Look at this eagle. Everything right for an FP except the sky. Charles (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • That's clear to me, when you said "choose" it sound to me like if that sky had been my choice. --Poco2 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I think Charles is only saying that you must accept that some trips just won't get you an FP. And yes we've all been there. It is you who chose to nominate it despite that. - Benh (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose a very good QI for sure but I'm simply not wowed enough --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sky, isnt so big, 8-9 MPx from around 50 ? --Mile (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI for sure but the cloudy sky prevents the wow here (Although it was in the uppermost decile of the WLM USA submissions for last year). Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose With this sky, there'd have to be something else to wow me. Detail? Nope. This is only 8MP (why Poco?). Amazing building? Nope. The signs "The Train Shoppe" and "Railroad Building". Are American's really so dumb that they need to be told what is a building and what is a shop? Plus the word "shoppe" was considered a deliberately quaint spelling even in 1900. There are modern electric fans in the windows of this olde worlde scene. -- Colin (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I uploaded a bigger version, but anyhow, that's all folks Poco2 19:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Rifugio Friedrich August - Gable.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 17:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting and sort of surreal. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting, but sort of odd. Charles (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Really cool! :) The paragliders adds to this "alien" landscape since they look a bit like several moons in some fantasy landscape. This could be the setting for a Star Wars sequel. --cart-Talk 10:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support this is very nice, good eye for compo --Mile (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I thought about this for a while; it's interesting, to be sure, but somehow there's something missing. I think it's the fact that it's neither an image of the house nor the paragliders; the house is only in the foreground, the gliders hardly visible. So in conclusion the image doesn't quite work for me.--Peulle (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Like Peulle. Composition just seems a bit forced and the paragliders are rather small. I can see why some people love it, though, and it makes a welcome change from ordinary mountain/building images. -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Monasterio de San Jorge, Perast, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 21.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 16:27:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Isabella Lövin signing climate law referral.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2018 at 14:06:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1990- Now
  •   Info created by Schyffel - uploaded by Axel Pettersson (WMSE) - nominated by W.carter
    The now famous photo where Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin signs a climate law referral, witnessed by two State Secretaries and members of her staff. With only women (including one who is visibly pregnant) it is a very non-typical government photo. It is also obvious that the minister is directing her attention to the camera and whoever is watching the photo. It became noticed around the world since it was published only days after the publication of a photo in which Donald Trump signed an executive anti-abortion order (the Mexico City Policy) surrounded by men. Small nice fact: Contrary to most photographers working with government-related material, this photographer is also a Commoner and Wikipedian (former board member of Wikimedia Sweden). -- cart-Talk 14:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- cart-Talk 14:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Absolutely. -- Colin (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot! Yann (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the nice soft curve the tops of their heads make. Not something you usually see in group photographs. Good call on Johann's part getting down and choosing a different angle from the one such photographs are usually taken from. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I was wondering if someone would notice the curve :-), it matches the curve of the table so that the ceiling becomes like a "mirror image" of the table. An unusual and very good photo. --cart-Talk 20:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Am I seeing tilt or perspective distortion? Charles (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Absolutely correct perspective was probably not what was most important for the photographer when creating this photo. Any perspective correction would completely ruin the comopsition and it's not important to do such in a photo like this. It is better to have the people depicted in a good way than worry about the proportions of a partial painting in the background. (See almost any photo from the Oval Office.) Like with other famous photos, we have to live the inherent imperfections in them. --cart-Talk 10:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no "distortion" and the "perspective" is "correct". If you stood where the camera was, looking with one eye, this is what you'd see. There are conventions surrounding architectural and interior building photography that the camera should be level, perpendicular to the facing wall, and the angle of view not too extreme. They are conventions that tend to produce pleasing results for photographs where the subject has straight lines at 90° to each other. Here, the subject is a group of people, and if you are concentrating on the verticals of the door or painting, then you aren't really looking properly. We had this complaint at File:Khandoba temple Pune.jpg, where the subject is the worshipers, and it went on to win 1st prize in WLM. Where do you look in this photo: File:Marilyn Monroe photo pose Seven Year Itch.jpg ;-) -- Colin (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please don't tell me that I'm not "really looking properly". That's patronising. In this image the camera is not "perpendicular to the facing wall". Easily corrected. An important image, but not FP. Charles (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Charles, could you consider, perhaps, that you are wrong? Enough neutrality: reviews like this are embarrassing. Please go to Pete Souza's Flickr Stream and examine the photos. Some are level, many are not. Many of his greatest photos are not. It is telling that this photo was published as-is by newspapers ([16], [17], [18], [19], etc) but when reviewed at FPC, we ended up with this rotated crop. Only on Commons does anyone worry that the door frame is not vertical. Only on Commons. *sigh*. The picture editors at all these newspapers [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] didn't feel the need to "correct" the verticals before publishing the photo we are reviewing here. Anyone here taken a photo that's gone viral, viewed by millions, and published in newspapers round the world? No, thought not. So a bird and insect photographer thinks all the world's newspaper photo editors, and Souza, arguably the best political event photographer of this century, are making a newbie, easily corrected, mistake? You are not really looking properly. -- Colin (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "No, thought not."? Wrong actually, Colin. One of my 'bird and insect photographs' was used by the Indian Postal Services on a postage stamp and so has been viewed by many more people than this nominated image. But that's beside the point and mentioned only in response to Colin's rant. I didn't write the FP guidelines which state "Images should not be unintentionally tilted". We are not a newspaper. Voters here are not newspaper editors. And Colin, you should not conclude that I can only take insect and bird images, just because I choose to only submit animal photos to Wikimedia. Charles (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your stamp, Charles, but it isn't actually what I meant or said. Your photo didn't "go viral". People didn't think it so meaningful that they forwarded it to their friends with a comment. This image achieved notability -- it was talked about as a photograph, not as so many pixels. Various, independent, newspaper picture editors selects it as a newsworthy image. It wasn't discussed because artistically or technically it was great, though it is perfectly fine, but for what it said. So, no, I don't think anyone where has taken a photo that meant anything. Not a diddly squat. Your bird stamp is a great achievement, but isn't a comment on Trump vs Lövin approach to government, or anything else. This photo is great because of what it says, not because of any of the tedious factors listed in our FPC guidelines. This is just a repeat of the Obama "is my hair like your hair" photo, where Commons embarrases itself by looking at pixels and not the picture. We fail to reliably recognise great photos. If the FP guidelines are being followed so rigidly by some, and you are not alone in becoming a robot wrt such things as noise or CA, then it truely is time to scrap them. They are, in my experience, only ever mentioned by folk defending wrongheaded reviews. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Womens changing climate, ideal IKEA shot from north, no males at all. Bad quality but very intersting compo, more interpretation. --Mile (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Manelolo (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:AA gun firing during Continuation War.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2018 at 21:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info My first candidate. I'll leave it to more professional evaluators on the technical aspects etc. but somehow this picture mesmerized me; created by Sot.virk. Tauno Norjavirta - uploaded by Manelolo - nominated by Manelolo -- Manelolo (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Manelolo (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Historically significant, and quite interesting, but it's too hard to see anything clearly in the image for me to vote for it.--Peulle (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    A chitchatty remark: That's what made it interesting to me. Pretty much only the barrel of the gun is sharp, otherwise everything is trembling due to the shockwave (I suppose?). Manelolo (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)*  Oppose A very interesting photo, I can see why it intrigues you. You could guess that the very exact triple exposure is a result of the ground shaking when the gun fired. Unfortunately it is in rather poor condition with scratches, dust and spots, and I would suggest that you restore it the same way many other FPs of historical photos have been and re-nominate it after that. --cart-Talk 11:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Might do that in the future. Manelolo (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info per W.carter I ended up retouching the pic with GIMP to clear dust, scratches, tears etc. as well as cropped the top slightly to remove a "disturbing" light in the upper right corner. I uploaded the new version over the old file, hopefully that doesn't mess the nomination! Manelolo (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, no. For getting that FP feeling, I'd be looking for an image where you can still see what's going on - like this one.--Peulle (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Ha, I feel you! For me, a shot like that is too clinical to conduce any awe or sense of it being real (like a Formula 1 pic without any blur). Manelolo (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, we've had grainy photos, historical photos, camera shake photos, B&W photos and restored photos here, so why not one that includes all of these aspects. :) --cart-Talk 10:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:In the mood. Veteran at Belgian National Day. Brussels, 2012.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2018 at 09:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Helsinki Olympic Stadium Tower.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 15:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  •   Info - all by me -- СССР (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- СССР (talk) 15:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support although I think it would be even better cropped in on the sides. Daniel Case (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support A hunch of crop on the sides might be better, but I like the simplicity and equal amounts of contrast between blue and white as well as the symmetry of the shadows. Pleasant to look at. Manelolo (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Pied kingfisher (Ceryle rudis rudis) female 2.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 12:16:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"This video contains content from Warner Chappell, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." Perhaps the surviving Ramones should use that as the basis for a song lyric Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I have no problem viewing it in Sweden. --cart-Talk 12:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@W.carter: Oh, don't worry about that, you couldn't have known. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Seventh Angel BoE-2012-4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 06:57:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Djhé - uploaded by Djhé - nominated by Djhé -- Djhé (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Djhé (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice artistic photo, it has a mood and strength to it that I really like. --cart-Talk 11:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not really liking the strong pattern noise, which has been emphasised by the processing. The hand is blurred and the aspect-ratio/crop just isn't working for me. If we're going to put up with the compromises that result from shooting a live act (high noise, weird colours from lighting, narrow DoF, etc) then I'd like to see the live act. Here is just a B&W photo of hands holding a guitar, which one could create with any anonymous model in the studio with much more pleasing results. -- Colin (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but there is always a je-ne-sais-qoui part/mood to a real live concert photo that is hard to duplicate in a studio shot. --cart-Talk 13:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I did a Google image search from the file description page and nearly every b&w image returned included the artists's head. Without that, there's no identity and no life to this "live performance". Many of the search results also are more dynamic in pose/action, whereas this is a very classic guitar hold with no apparent movement. The landscape format makes me think the head is cropped off, though it is more likely the camera was just held that way. -- Colin (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Mmmh. FWIW, for me it is very apparent that this is a live performance. "[A]ny anonymous model" won't do for this kind of thing, you'll need an actual guitar player for this or it'll look utterly fake. But I see your point regarding the crop – and I think it could possibly help to crop even more on the top and right. Regarding the noise, I wonder how it would look like had it been shot on actual black & white film (something like Delta 3200 pushed a stop or two). I'm still undecided … --El Grafo (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • El Grafo, you're going to tell me now that the models in "Addicted to Love" aren't actual guitar players ;-). Ok, "model" was probably the wrong word, but any modestly able guitar player would do. All I can see here is a white male in a dark t-shirt holding some random guitar. Everything that makes capturing a live performance worthwhile seems to be missing. -- Colin (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin.--Peulle (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Black and noisy -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose cart makes a strong argument, but in the end I'm going to have to agree with Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:20180128 FIS NC Worldcup Seefeld Ilka Herola 850 2666.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 09:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  •   Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support It is nearly impossible to get a ski jumper 100% sharp while panning, but this is the best I could get. He would be sharp enough for the Newspapers at lower resolution and even Spiegel Online had a way less sharp panned ski jumper in their articles about the Olympic Games currently running in Korea so maybe this is wow enough to cover the missing sharpness. I'll give it a try. :) --Granada (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good for me. Yann (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Excellent, IMO. Quite a clear picture of the subject under the circumstances, and I love the motion blur, which really helps me perceive speed and motion in an objectively static image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose You will not achieve sharpness using a shutter speed setting of 1/200 sec. (Image is downsized). Charles (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • It's absolutely necessary to use longer shutter speeds to do panning and downsizing is not forbidden. --Granada (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp enough for a panning shot. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While I agree that getting it sharp is difficult, it's what's needed for me to vote in support of this.--Peulle (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness of skier is, to me, more than offset by the success of the panning. Daniel Case (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:John Jay (Gilbert Stuart portrait).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 05:45:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Ansel Adams and camera.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2018 at 05:32:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by J. Malcolm Greany - uploaded by Kaidor with modifications by User:Utzdman55 and Kaidor - nominated by Pine -- Pine 05:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pine 05:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Djhé (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --cart-Talk 10:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support God historical value and quality considering the age.--Peulle (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Uncalibrated f/64. --Mile (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Claus 08:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The photographer photographed as he would have photographed his work. Daniel Case (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Does anyone know what is the camera kind/model? --Gnosis (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Malachite kingfisher (Corythornis cristatus stuartkeithi).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 23:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • There is only one other FP of this species - it is a different subspecies - and it shows a different profile of one of the world's most beautiful birds. I'm surprised by your comment as you yourself have two FPs of an identical view Example 1 and Example 2. Never mind your two FPs of the same fuscia species Example 3 and Example 4. I realise also that you find that your sawing machine justifies 3 FPs! Do explain your reasoning please. Charles (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Answer: your comparison with my photo is not entirely up. Those pictures differ from each other. But of the kingfisher we have at least 5, of which 1 is with a fish in the mouth. The sawing machine is also very different from each other. I also commented on that. Once again your photo is perfect, but it looks like the other photos. But that is my personal opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I'll leave others to judge the differences between your images, but I don't think there are arbritrary limits on FPs. You may know, for instance, that there are 34 Featured pictures of Ardea, many of the same species - and herons are not more diverse and attractive than the kingfisher family - though I'm biased as I love kingfishers and they are so much more challenging to photograph than herons! Charles (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Love that beak ... I had to back away a little bit when I first saw this because I thought it was going to peck out the lens. I wish more of it could have been sharper but, I know, you do what you can with what you've got. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Louvre Cour Carree.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 22:34:31

Current

 

Proposed

 

  •   Info (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace - Disturbing ghosts in both, but the second version is far superior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace The new version is perspectively corrected. --Granada (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace because of corrected projection. However, I like the slightly darker blue in the old version more. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting... I never tried to tweak the projection of that one... Good job! - Benh (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment worth mentioning what exactly was corrected IMO. Only the opposite side was. As far as I can see, the left and right were untouched, and neither was the ground. - Benh (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Although I do like that darker blue sky as well. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace --Claus 08:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hmmm after a more thorough look, I'm seeing that the corners look a bit weird at full size... I wouldn't promote it but will keep neutral... - Benh (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Bad Kissingen Maxbrunnen 0417RM0270.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 21:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Krummhörn, Greetsiel, Hafen -- 2018 -- 1126.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 18:15:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Ships
  •   Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think this photo may have trouble at FPC, but I love this complex composition, and also the contrast between the many lines on the right and the space on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Camera not level; mast cropped; buildings behind boats are distracting. The post and the rope make it very undramatic as all movement possibility is stuck. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin.--Peulle (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin; just too much going on here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:20180126 FIS NC WC Seefeld Eric Frenzel 850 9872.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 08:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Granada (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can see why a banana in a portrait could be funny but here unfortunately it blends in too much with the shapes and colors of his clothes and equipment. Looking at the photo, you first see him, then you notice a smudge on his face, then you realize the smudge is a shadow and finally you realize it comes from something he is holding which turns out to be a banana. The pun gets lost. Sorry. --cart-Talk 10:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think it's funny and worth the time it takes to get the punch line. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'd go in and edit the image to reduce the shadow in his face, because I think it's disturbing.--Peulle (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree the banana is not very distinctive at small size, but as soon as you figure out what it is, then the gesture associated to the object gets obvious, and you immediately understand what's the intention of the stage. It becomes funny and this way reveals an interesting personality trait on Eric Frenzel. Technically very good picture, large and sharp -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Whether the joke works or not is beside the point; I really don't get wowed enough by this one for it to be FP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good sharp photo, but doesn't quite work to FP for me. -- Colin (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Castel del Monte BW 2016-10-14 13-15-58.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 07:48:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Italy
  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Nice building, but I'm unconvinced by this picture. I've written a note with a proposed crop and a criticism of the cutoff of the tree at the left margin, but I'm unsure whether I'd support the photo if you took the two steps I suggest. The sharpness of the building is a little soft. The light is growing on me, though, and the vegetation is interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

File:PIA17218 – A Farewell to Saturn, Brightened Version.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 02:48:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Astronomy

File:Dahlia cultivar (70093s).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2018 at 00:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  •   Info focus stacked image of a Dahlia cultivar in New York in October 2017. all by me — Rhododendrites talk |  00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  00:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice flower, good stacking and I also love dahlias with their velvety oh-so-hard-to-photograph texture, but the light is unappealing and with two partially cut buds, the composition could be better. Sorry. --cart-Talk 09:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per everything cart said, plus the posterization on the petal tips that happens so often in this kind of picture (And does it really fade from red to magenta like that?) Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination Oh, thought I already withdrew this. Ah well. @Daniel Case: it does sort of fade, if I understand what you mean. See this other one from the same spot. @W.carter: I wasn't sure about this one, but actually figured I'd nominate it based on your QIC feedback (I may too easily take specific post-processing suggestions as hints when accompanying promotion) :) — Rhododendrites talk |  04:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Beachy Head March 2017 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2018 at 20:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Contre-jour photo of Beachy Head in in East Sussex, England. The cliff is the highest chalk sea cliff in Britain, rising to 162 metres (531 ft) above sea level. Created, uploaded and nominated -- Arild Vågen (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Well-captured light. --cart-Talk 09:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm not really wow'ed. The people are distracting too. --A.Savin 23:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'd afraid my eye is led round to the man with legs apart, looking at the camera. It's a shame but I think that near couple spoil the photo. The vapour trail is also a bit unfortunate, but could be cloned out. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not FP in composition for me. Charles (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Jaswant Zafar at Bhai Vir Singh Sahitya Sadan.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2018 at 18:25:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, and probably valued image, but I'd like the person facing the camera for a FP. Also too much empty space. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI probably, but doesn't stand out enough for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. A technically very good shot, sharp and well lit, but I would also love it to see the person facing to the camera. --Granada (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Regretful oppose A really good portrait does not have to be someone facing the camera (there are plenty of profiles and half-profiles in Commons:Featured pictures/People), but unfortunately the side of the glasses ends up right over his eye and that is disturbing the photo. Otherwise it is really good and I like the space in the photo since it gives the man a chance to breathe. I'm also intrigued by seeing how the glasses are tucked into the folds of the turban. I haven't seen many people wearing such headdresses and I didn't realize that's how they work with glasses. --cart-Talk 10:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Kleinarl Jägersee 20180209.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 14:24:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tubla sun Juac cun Odles y Stevia Gherdëina.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 11:40:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Italy
  •   Info created & uploaded by Wolfgang Moroder - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - The mountain on the upper right may be a bit disproportionately unsharp, but the overall quality is good and I find the composition quite interesting. (I don't like the category - it's not a purely natural scene and I wanted "Mountains" but couldn't figure out how to get that to link to anything.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question Why is the tree in the middle of the picture? Charles (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - IMO, biscecting the picture nearly in two that way is a nice structural element and look. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Like the "lines" in the picture. --LG Nyqvist (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, not an interesting composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the composition too. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not bad, but not special enough to be FP. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The swiss pine and the sunburned logs of the barn give a special taste of alpine atmosphere --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice scenery, but big parts are unsharp. This camera definitely has better performance --A.Savin 23:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Kloster Banz vom Staffelberg 270136-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 07:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment a bit too centered? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but this light doesn't give me the wow. With so much nature being included, I'd need some more impressive lighting.--Peulle (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Harlock81 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral To be there and see this view in real life is something special. Difficult to give it justice in a picture. If I have been there I had divided the view in 3 rows and 3 colums and put the building in same row but in colum #1 or #3 --LG Nyqvist (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment That depends on how you divide up the picture. The uppermost light in the clouds is the rest of the sunset far left outside the picture. The sky was simply too dark on the right side and in the foreground and on the right side there would be lights of the highway and other roads. But I will certainly find another solution next time.--
  • Ermell (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle, no wow for me. IMO the main object is also just a small part of the composition. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Color seems very off, and unsharpness in some areas more than the long exposure can forgive. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Bajorelieve1-monumentoaSanMartinMDP.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2018 at 02:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Reagan sitting with people from the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in February 1983.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 13:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1980-1990
  •   Info In the series of images depicting significant historical events, this image is captioned: President Reagan meeting with Afghan Freedom Fighters to discuss Soviet atrocities in Afghanistan. 2/2/83. During the Soviet invasion, the US provided financial and military support to the mujahedin, in a covert operation managed by the CIA. While this support was classified, the moral support was public - as this image shows.
  • Created by a White House photographer (possibly Tim Clary) Michael Evans, as stamped on the contact sheet, uploaded by Scewing, nominated by Peulle -- Peulle (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Peulle (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- I have done a minor fix: straightened and perspektive correction. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Most of the source links are broken. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @Juliancolton: I did a little searching on the net and some digging and found that most of the files have just been moved to the Reagan Library website. I have put the new links on the file's page. One pdf lists all the rolls of film taken by the White House photographers during 1983, complete with contact sheets and everything (frame 32). Pretty cool! So the name of the photographer is no longer a mystery (it's Michael Evans) and you can apparently order larger files from the library if you want. A fun thing is looking at the other photos in this roll plus the one before and after so you get coverage of the whole event. This looks like a good site to visit to sort things out about photos from that era. --cart-Talk 23:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Historically significant. It seems like a hundred years ago that right-wingers and Evangelicals in the U.S. thought jihadists were righteous "freedom fighters", and of course they were fighting Soviet, rather than American occupation in those days. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose historically significant moment perhaps, and possibly high enough EV for FP on Wikipedia, but for me the EV doesn't carry it far enough. the capture seems rather unremarkable aside from just being in the room. — Rhododendrites talk |  02:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose While hunting for sources for this photos, I've gone over it in by head and now I find that Rhododendrites has expressed my view rather eloquently. Sorry. --cart-Talk 12:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - agree that it has EV and would be a good candidate for en.WP but it doesn't quite meet the FP requirements here. Atsme 📞 16:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Rhododendrites. Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Car radio antenna on Mazda 323 compacted.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 10:08:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • For me, it adds a depth to the picture having a light side and a dark side, divided by the antenna. Having all of it evenly lit would have been boring and not given the image enough contrast. --cart-Talk 11:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - I do not mind the darkness. I like the idea that is well executed. --Pugilist (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support these crystals with their dense texture. A macro lens would have made it gorgeous, but the quality is okay -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Creative!! Love the definition of the crystals. Atsme 📞 16:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer a little bit lighter. But a resourceful choice.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support As per others -- Bijay Chaurasia (Talk) 17:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Super cool AM (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Green crab traps with white buoys.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2018 at 06:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by WClarke - uploaded by WClarke - nominated by WClarke -- WClarke 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- WClarke 06:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Too many blurry bars and other blurry things, uncomfortable to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Very arty, looks like the moon trapped. Unusual, intriguing and different. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Since I like odd, arty photos I wanted to get mesmerized by this but unfortunately that didn't happen. The lines are too many and too chaotic. The overcast light doesn't help as it makes all surfaces flat. Sorry. --cart-Talk 12:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan and Cart -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Turgot map of Paris, Kyoto University Library (delist)Edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2018 at 12:08:54

Delist
       
       
       
       
       
Replace
Sectional maps