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:Vieux Crabe (ship, 1951), Sète.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 18:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Western jackdaw (Coloeus monedula spermologus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 16:54:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Image:Vistas Alcazaba Almería.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 14:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Colorful face painting, 2696947.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 03:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by ivanovgood, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks good in small size, but too grainy in full size IMO --Llez (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yeah, and the slight lack of sharpness on the nose - it's pretty minor, but in this image it makes the paint look smudgy.--Peulle (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: Please sign to make your vote legit. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.--Peulle (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Retrato de una niña, Mahdia, Túnez, 2016-09-03, DD 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 18:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Charles: yes, of course, I explicitly asked the father of the girl, who was present, for permission. We were actually in the middle of a Wiki Takes and the girl was photographed by many of us. Poco2 17:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a good child portrait, but not much more. --A.Savin 23:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The WB is too blue. When you do a portrait where the light is not a special feature, you should try to get that right so she gets her right skin tone (as well as the whites of her eyes). --Cart (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    Cart, ok, I see, there was some room for improvement, I just uploaded a new version with a "warmer" WB, thanks! --Poco2 17:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Paisaje cerca de la mina de Collahuasi, Chile, 2016-02-10, DD 16-21 PAN.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 18:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Poco a poco: Which makes this image all the more extraordinary ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question - How many degrees is this panorama? It would be good to include that in the file description, too, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan, it is aprox. 200 degrees (the road on left and right side is the same), I added it to the file description, along with the geodata (middle of nowhere) Poco2 07:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Helleborus orientalis, Zaaddozen zwellen, Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 05:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Helleborus orientalis #Family Ranunculaceae
  •   Info The seed pods of this Helleborus orientalis begin to swell and to ripen. The petals change color to beautiful earth tones and look like parchment. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting. Works better because it's not in sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Barbara Bush at LBJ Presidential Library.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 03:08:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Lauren Gerson - uploaded by Blazoaustin - nominated by Shizhao -- shizhao (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- shizhao (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but that isn't working for me; it's a profile so you can't really see her complete facial expression, and there's not much going on that would give me a "wow" feeling. I don't think the technical quality is quite up to FP level either.--Peulle (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a good photo, and if the intent is to memorialize the late Mrs. Bush, I think a) a better image could probably be found and b) we should wait. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't think I agree that it's not a good photo, but I do agree that it's not an outstanding one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Canis mesomelas.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2018 at 16:58:27
 

  •   Info Head is not in focus (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Charles (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist . Barely passed in 2007. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist Focus is on the rear end, head somewhat oversharpened. Contrast could be better. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist I agree. Considering the resolution, lighting and general detail, this is surely no longer one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist Good shot, but way below FP quality today. --El Grafo (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist Purple fringing to a degree unacceptable in an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:PIA22349 – Gullies of Matara Crater.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2018 at 02:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Peak-in-kuh-e-genu-mountain-range-iran.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 21:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dromedar on Queshm island in southern Iran.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 20:37:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of the above opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Hypomeces squamosus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 13:37:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Straßburg Pöckstein 1 Schlosspark Monopteros 11102016 4827.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 13:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:HarryTruman.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 08:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Superfície não orientável - Bordo trifólio.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 19:23:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's quite bizarre to see this kind speech ^ in an open and collaborative community that has educational as its principals.
Charles I renamed the file as the Professor responsible for museum requested. It's a renomination, it's quite clearing that's a renomination, as we have access to history, but as I had to change the name of the file, put a /2 on it was wrong, and I didn't find documentation to how to proceed.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 03:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies if my response sounded harsh. Without judging the actual quality of the image, I am going to formally   Oppose this nomination since 1) the image has previously (and fairly recently) failed to reach featured status, 2) there seems to have been no change to the image since then, 3) the nominator has not specified any reason for the renomination. Please accept my submission that without good reason, failed nominations should not be renominated. --Peulle (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment AFAICS, simply changing the name of a file is not sufficient grounds for a renomination, the image itself needs to be improved or changed in some significant way. That is not the case here, it is exactly the same image. I will not vote since I consider this nomination invalid. The community reached a decision about this image a year ago and that still stands. --Cart (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    • While it is disappointing to fail through lack of support, vs clear oppose votes, the result is the same. Many people dislike opposing, and so when they fail to turn up and support, it still counts as a failure. For renoms, in addition to improving an image, or cases where a previous nomination got complicated or disrupted (such as too many alternatives proposed), I would support a renom in it was felt that there had been long enough duration (years) between noms that the community attitude towards a type of image may have changed. Doing it again merely to get another spin at the roulette wheel is not fair IMO. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I reopen the vote, as a volunteer created an unhealthy environment in previously discussion, and by one vote didn't pass by false allegations, not because the lack of quality.
And them, well we have a new unwelcoming environment to discuss about this image again.
This kind of environment move away votes, contributions, more than low quality, a lot volunteers deviate harsh speech, but I think that you know that.
Again your are prioritising your political views than the evaluation of image...
.
Just one point, this seems to be a wiki community, and the one of the beauty of wiki is the possibility to change - as we have the possibility to remove a FP badge, rediscuss one image is not harmful, harmful is this what you are creating.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
RTA, the only volunteer who "created an unhealthy environment in previously discussion" was you. I don't know which "false allegations" you refer to, but sounds a bit like saying lies, which isn't very friendly. One supporter's only contributions to FPC in 2017 were to support your nominations. Another hadn't contributed to FPC for four months and would not vote again for another eight months. Both Brazilian. So some pretty clear canvassing going on there. -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
q.e.d. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 13:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Charles (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose per all discussion above. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Vieux-Québec 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 16:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It is a subjetive factor, I find interesting the 50s building facade and aspect --The Photographer 23:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:River Cuckmere April 2018 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 09:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United Kingdom
  •   Info Pastoral English landscape with the river Cuckmere. East Sussex, England. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely landscape. The image might seem fairly ordinary, but it captures a certain mood. There's just something about it that makes me want to sit down by that stream and relax.--Peulle (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, it is a peaceful moment but I still miss something here, a more pano view could help, there is definitely too much grass in the foreground and also a bit too much sky IMHO Poco2 12:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Missing nothing for me. It's beautiful and reminds me of really good 19th-century English landscapes by people like Constable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support but see note: a tighter crop might be even better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Turneresque. Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But a bit more "panorama-crop" would be even better --Llez (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Punjabi Man from Gulabewala, Sri Muktsar Sahib.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 08:34:58 (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 (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough space on the right (in front of the man), and we can't see the eyes. Also a bit dark. Yann (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann and it lacks some sharpness, --Poco2 12:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I keep thinking "Uh ... sir ... the camera's over here". Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann, too dark and the eyes are hidden -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Darshan Singh, Village Akbarpur Afghana.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 08:26:00 (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 (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good portrait. --Yann (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome. But the perspective could be slightly corrected -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 12:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basile. Please add the personality right disclaimer, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ezarateesteban 14:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Heavy purple CA around his head, please fix that. --Code (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp and detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good portrait, interesting personality --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is nice, but I wonder if the shadows can be lifted, especially on the face? Charles (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This shouldn't be this good, but it is. I like that the bench conveys a slight symmetry, one pleasingly offset by the background, yet united with it in rectilinearity. The neutral tones accentuate the humility suggested by his seated posture and white clothing. An excellent environmental portrait. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Techelsberg Sankt Martin Winterwald 31012015 750.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 07:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment Still oppose for me; it's nice, but just not very ... "niiiice".--Peulle (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I preferred the original version with the different trees and the shades of tones -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The current version is better but I still miss more image on the top Poco2 18:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support now. Thanks Martin! --Cart (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't see anything really interesting in this and the tree bottom right (see note) doesn't help. Charles (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Sharpest part seems to have been cropped out, but overall it makes a nice texture. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful composition, and the crop resulted in a big improvement. I frankly don't care about the degree of sharpness of the trees in a photo that's so based on the rhythm of the eyes moving around the picture frame that that abstract element is much more important than the details on the individual trees. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, no wow for me, per Puelle. --Karelj (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Hermione (ship, 2014), Sète 2018 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 07:25:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Unfortunately even very small things can disturb a photo. Might be hard to clone these out though. --Cart (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice blue hour shot. --Code (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. The yellow flag looking like a ghost is more disturbing than the garbage bins, but both attract the eyes immediately after the ship. They're located in front, just in the middle. Also I wonder if this saturated blue is not overprocessed -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above, the subject is though FP-worthy. I wonder whether it would have been possible to take the image from the front Poco2 12:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Cart. Once you see those, you can't unsee them. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Caecum vitreum 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 03:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
  •   Info : No, it is NOT what you think it is on the first sight! 😉 It is a 1.9 millimetre long shell of a tiny sea snail.
    Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Impressive for a photo of such a small shell. How did you even see this to collect it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    •   Info For such small shells I take a handful of sand at the beach and then I search under a binocular microscope sand grain for sand grain for several hours. --Llez (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The quality is not there, but the similarity with the "object" is amazing and very funny. Nice find -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Basile, this one is far below the quality you usually present here. Clearly it is more challeging to get there for tiny objects but I believe that there is room for improvement, sorry Poco2 12:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment I agree that the quality of the shell photos I usually present here is better. But I please you to note, that such tiny objects can not be photographed with a normal camera. All my photos of tiny shells, see for example the Caecidae or Rissoidae photos, are made with a binocular microscope, which does never reach (and is also not comparable with) the quality of pictures of a good "normal" camera. --Llez (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, I strike through my vote as I've no experience in this kind of photography, and therefore I don't really feel qualified to judge the result Poco2 18:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually I've that lens (and in that cat there are a few QIs of mine) but so far I just used it outdoors, which is really hard. I'll try to take some studio images of tiny objects with my 5DS R, I didn't try that yet. Poco2 18:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info For the shell photos I normally use a 60mm Tamron Macro objective, which is comparable to the Canon lens mentioned above. This objective is useful for objects (e.g. shells) down to 6 mm (of course I made this photo with the 60mm Macro). All objects, which are smaller can't be photographed picture-filling any more, for you can't go closer to the object. This means, the smaller the object, the smaller is the object on the photo and the more empty space you have (and the more quality loss you have). Therefore I use for objects smaller than 6 mm not a normal camera with macro lens but an UCMOS 14000KPA camera (4096 x 3288 px) in combination with a microscope or a binocular mircoscope respectively, which allows picture filling photos of objects from 6 mm down to 10 μm (!), an object size, which is impossible to photograph with a normal macro lens. All my photos of shells, of which the size is below 7 mm, are made with the UCMOS 14000KPA. --Llez (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I've added two categories : Pareidolias and Condoms. If not in the description, what makes this picture special should be mentioned somewhere on the file page, I think -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Llez's response to Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Guéthary - Port -BT- 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 21:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Three buffaloes heads above water in Si Phan Don.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 15:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, these water buffaloes got their name from this particular behavior. They're often cooling themselves in the water (or in the mud), when the weather is hot -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Very strong oppose These working animals have ropes inserted through their noses and we should not be celebrating this abusive (though traditional) practice. Charles (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, that's a point. It seems that I'm too urban to see this. Charles, did you notice that you've put 'support' in your oppose? --Basotxerri (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For now this vote is more a green support than a strong oppose   but to answer your comment, Charles, these domestic buffaloes are not enclosed and then free to graze and move where they want. I think such practices are more respectful than to park them in a small enclosure like in other areas in the world. But these are not wild animals, contrary to what it seems ! And concerning the rope in their noses, Wikipedia says "Bulls, especially, are powerful and sometimes unpredictable animals which, if uncontrolled, can kill or severely injure a human handler". Also I don't encourage any practice just taking this picture, I was passing by this river bank, and met these animals starring at me like big sharks, that made me shoot -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes an innocently-taken image can reveal animal cruelty. Could I suggest you have a look at these online comments on what's behind this photo: one; two
  • Charles, are you ok? You vote with the wrong symbol, you confuse wiki-link code with external link code and you don't sign your comment. I have fixed the links for you though. Hope you are taking care of yourself, --Cart (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm just committed to animal welfare and I hope we all are. When I'm cross, I make more mistakes! Sorry. Charles (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Good to hear, you had me worried there for a while. The Wiki-project needs good photos of everything. Remaining neutral when judging good photos or good text in articles can sometimes be very hard when the content goes against our own feelings on the subject. Good photos are supposed to extract emotions from us and make us think. --Cart (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You are right, but this well-composed image was taken in good faith just to be an interesting shot, which it is. A close-up of the ropes piercing the animals' heads would be very acceptable if the caption described what was being depicted. To give another example, it would not be acceptable (in my view) to nominate a pretty picture of very young children sewing colourful carpets without mentioning the abusive practice of child labour. Charles (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well then, the solution would be to add neutral information about this part of the photo, since it is possible to extract closeups from this photo (one of the reasons why FPs are in hi-res). Let's see if I can fix that so that all parties will be satisfied. My edit can of course be removed or tweaked. --Cart (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Totally agree to mention this nose rope in the description. I also added a link to the Bubalus bubalis, which is the main subject. However, I don't think this picture is the right place to debate about the nose ring, the Wikipedia article is much more appropriate to the discussion (in favor or against), and a link to the page might be enough, I think. Then I changed the description accordingly to the vision I have about this image. Thanks for the contributions -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's ok, but in the new edit you instead inserted a personal comment and veiwpoint ("At this bank, starring at the camera like three sharks, or like three attentive observers, they're rather funny to look at, as if they were expecting something from their group photograph.") That should be removed since it doesn't belong in a neutral image description, please do so. Let the viewer form their own oppinion about the photo. Like if this photo was to be used in an article about nose ropes, that's not the sort of comment you'd want accompanying the picture. --Cart (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I took the liberty to write it's funny because I'm not the only one to find so, reading the others. And concerning your idea about nose ropes, reading the Wikipedia page, there is not (yet) people against -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just because there are at least two people finding something funny, does not mean it is so for everyone. I for one don't find this funny at all. But it's a good picture. Image descriptions should be neutral, that's how encyclopedic material works. If you don't like to have other people's values in an image text, you should not impose your values either. --Cart (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)~
  • No problem, I'm fine with the description now -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Basile, it would be best to add the new descriptions in French, too, when you have the chance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, slowly, slowly... First get a consensus on the text in English, then translate -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I saw once one water buffalo gone berserk... and out of control. In this case, better not to stay close... The rope in the nose is a necessary security feature for every one. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Camaleão - Polychrus marmoratus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 12:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Phalaenopsis Cultivar Mini 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 10:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info @Charlesjsharp: This is very close to the original, no photoshopping here. Put the flower on the desk with a dark purple background, and put the flash in a position so that it illuminates the bloom from the back – that's the trick. Create a focus stack, increase the contrast a bit, and do some sharpening. That's it. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  Support thanks very much. Charles (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thanks for your support vote, but please sign it correctly! --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
whoops! fixed now, thanks for the ping --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae

File:Caerphilly Castle south.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2018 at 21:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#United_Kingdom
  •   Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality, but I would crop a little off the bottom (keeping all the reflection) and get rid off the remaining grass bottom right. Charles (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good for QI, but not that good light, harsh shadows, sorry --A.Savin 00:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I actually like the harsh shadows... they help accentuate the function/character of a fortress --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the light either, it almost looks overexposed.--Peulle (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Further, I'm wondering if a long exposure could have created a better reflection of the building. Or a shot on a less windy day. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Tempered support Basotxerri has a point, but until we get that picture I'm OK with this one. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A possible FP-composition, but the light does not impressed me --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Powerlines at the crossroads.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2018 at 21:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Powerlines always give me a sort of "badlands" vibe, so I shot this crossing while the grass was still dry after winter and the deciduous trees still bare. (soundtrack) All by me, -- Cart (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The lower left corner is kind of distorted and blurry, but that's not what this picture is about. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support for me a simple and balanced line game.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:KAS-Wiederaufbau-Bild-4-4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2018 at 09:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Larrun - Le Petit Train -BT- 01.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2018 at 17:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#France
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment ...and again a vanishing point but this one goes downwards. I'm not sure about the FP category, for me it's an object but it might fit in Land vehicles. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. The detail leaves something to be desired, but otherwise great view and the overhead line even appears symmetric to the track. --A.Savin 20:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is indeed a great view, but for me the technical quality is not high enough to be called one of the best images on Commons. On a side note, I think the category should be "places" or something.--Peulle (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Alexander. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with A.Savin. — Draceane talkcontrib. 13:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just not working for me, not sure why. -- Colin (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 22:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle. --Karelj (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


Contestations en coursEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Vieux Crabe (ship, 1951), Sète.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 18:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Western jackdaw (Coloeus monedula spermologus).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 16:54:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Image:Vistas Alcazaba Almería.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 14:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Colorful face painting, 2696947.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2018 at 03:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by ivanovgood, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks good in small size, but too grainy in full size IMO --Llez (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yeah, and the slight lack of sharpness on the nose - it's pretty minor, but in this image it makes the paint look smudgy.--Peulle (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: Please sign to make your vote legit. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks.--Peulle (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Retrato de una niña, Mahdia, Túnez, 2016-09-03, DD 06.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 18:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Charles: yes, of course, I explicitly asked the father of the girl, who was present, for permission. We were actually in the middle of a Wiki Takes and the girl was photographed by many of us. Poco2 17:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's a good child portrait, but not much more. --A.Savin 23:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The WB is too blue. When you do a portrait where the light is not a special feature, you should try to get that right so she gets her right skin tone (as well as the whites of her eyes). --Cart (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    Cart, ok, I see, there was some room for improvement, I just uploaded a new version with a "warmer" WB, thanks! --Poco2 17:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Paisaje cerca de la mina de Collahuasi, Chile, 2016-02-10, DD 16-21 PAN.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 18:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@Poco a poco: Which makes this image all the more extraordinary ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Question - How many degrees is this panorama? It would be good to include that in the file description, too, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
    Ikan, it is aprox. 200 degrees (the road on left and right side is the same), I added it to the file description, along with the geodata (middle of nowhere) Poco2 07:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Helleborus orientalis, Zaaddozen zwellen, Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 05:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Helleborus orientalis #Family Ranunculaceae
  •   Info The seed pods of this Helleborus orientalis begin to swell and to ripen. The petals change color to beautiful earth tones and look like parchment. All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- P999 (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting. Works better because it's not in sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Barbara Bush at LBJ Presidential Library.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2018 at 03:08:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Lauren Gerson - uploaded by Blazoaustin - nominated by Shizhao -- shizhao (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- shizhao (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but that isn't working for me; it's a profile so you can't really see her complete facial expression, and there's not much going on that would give me a "wow" feeling. I don't think the technical quality is quite up to FP level either.--Peulle (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a good photo, and if the intent is to memorialize the late Mrs. Bush, I think a) a better image could probably be found and b) we should wait. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't think I agree that it's not a good photo, but I do agree that it's not an outstanding one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Canis mesomelas.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2018 at 16:58:27
 

  •   Info Head is not in focus (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Charles (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist . Barely passed in 2007. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist Focus is on the rear end, head somewhat oversharpened. Contrast could be better. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist I agree. Considering the resolution, lighting and general detail, this is surely no longer one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist Good shot, but way below FP quality today. --El Grafo (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delist Purple fringing to a degree unacceptable in an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:PIA22349 – Gullies of Matara Crater.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2018 at 02:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Peak-in-kuh-e-genu-mountain-range-iran.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 21:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dromedar on Queshm island in southern Iran.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 20:37:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of the above opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Hypomeces squamosus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 13:37:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Straßburg Pöckstein 1 Schlosspark Monopteros 11102016 4827.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 13:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:HarryTruman.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2018 at 08:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Superfície não orientável - Bordo trifólio.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 19:23:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's quite bizarre to see this kind speech ^ in an open and collaborative community that has educational as its principals.
Charles I renamed the file as the Professor responsible for museum requested. It's a renomination, it's quite clearing that's a renomination, as we have access to history, but as I had to change the name of the file, put a /2 on it was wrong, and I didn't find documentation to how to proceed.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 03:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Apologies if my response sounded harsh. Without judging the actual quality of the image, I am going to formally   Oppose this nomination since 1) the image has previously (and fairly recently) failed to reach featured status, 2) there seems to have been no change to the image since then, 3) the nominator has not specified any reason for the renomination. Please accept my submission that without good reason, failed nominations should not be renominated. --Peulle (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment AFAICS, simply changing the name of a file is not sufficient grounds for a renomination, the image itself needs to be improved or changed in some significant way. That is not the case here, it is exactly the same image. I will not vote since I consider this nomination invalid. The community reached a decision about this image a year ago and that still stands. --Cart (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    • While it is disappointing to fail through lack of support, vs clear oppose votes, the result is the same. Many people dislike opposing, and so when they fail to turn up and support, it still counts as a failure. For renoms, in addition to improving an image, or cases where a previous nomination got complicated or disrupted (such as too many alternatives proposed), I would support a renom in it was felt that there had been long enough duration (years) between noms that the community attitude towards a type of image may have changed. Doing it again merely to get another spin at the roulette wheel is not fair IMO. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I reopen the vote, as a volunteer created an unhealthy environment in previously discussion, and by one vote didn't pass by false allegations, not because the lack of quality.
And them, well we have a new unwelcoming environment to discuss about this image again.
This kind of environment move away votes, contributions, more than low quality, a lot volunteers deviate harsh speech, but I think that you know that.
Again your are prioritising your political views than the evaluation of image...
.
Just one point, this seems to be a wiki community, and the one of the beauty of wiki is the possibility to change - as we have the possibility to remove a FP badge, rediscuss one image is not harmful, harmful is this what you are creating.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 12:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
RTA, the only volunteer who "created an unhealthy environment in previously discussion" was you. I don't know which "false allegations" you refer to, but sounds a bit like saying lies, which isn't very friendly. One supporter's only contributions to FPC in 2017 were to support your nominations. Another hadn't contributed to FPC for four months and would not vote again for another eight months. Both Brazilian. So some pretty clear canvassing going on there. -- Colin (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
q.e.d. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 13:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose Charles (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose per all discussion above. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Vieux-Québec 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 16:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It is a subjetive factor, I find interesting the 50s building facade and aspect --The Photographer 23:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:River Cuckmere April 2018 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 09:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United Kingdom
  •   Info Pastoral English landscape with the river Cuckmere. East Sussex, England. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely landscape. The image might seem fairly ordinary, but it captures a certain mood. There's just something about it that makes me want to sit down by that stream and relax.--Peulle (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, it is a peaceful moment but I still miss something here, a more pano view could help, there is definitely too much grass in the foreground and also a bit too much sky IMHO Poco2 12:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Missing nothing for me. It's beautiful and reminds me of really good 19th-century English landscapes by people like Constable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support but see note: a tighter crop might be even better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Turneresque. Daniel Case (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support But a bit more "panorama-crop" would be even better --Llez (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Punjabi Man from Gulabewala, Sri Muktsar Sahib.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 08:34:58 (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 (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 08:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not enough space on the right (in front of the man), and we can't see the eyes. Also a bit dark. Yann (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann and it lacks some sharpness, --Poco2 12:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I keep thinking "Uh ... sir ... the camera's over here". Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Yann, too dark and the eyes are hidden -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Darshan Singh, Village Akbarpur Afghana.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 08:26:00 (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 (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good portrait. --Yann (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome. But the perspective could be slightly corrected -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 12:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Basile. Please add the personality right disclaimer, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ezarateesteban 14:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Heavy purple CA around his head, please fix that. --Code (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp and detailed --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Good portrait, interesting personality --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is nice, but I wonder if the shadows can be lifted, especially on the face? Charles (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support This shouldn't be this good, but it is. I like that the bench conveys a slight symmetry, one pleasingly offset by the background, yet united with it in rectilinearity. The neutral tones accentuate the humility suggested by his seated posture and white clothing. An excellent environmental portrait. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolf im Wald 12:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Techelsberg Sankt Martin Winterwald 31012015 750.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 07:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment Still oppose for me; it's nice, but just not very ... "niiiice".--Peulle (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I preferred the original version with the different trees and the shades of tones -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The current version is better but I still miss more image on the top Poco2 18:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support now. Thanks Martin! --Cart (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't see anything really interesting in this and the tree bottom right (see note) doesn't help. Charles (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Sharpest part seems to have been cropped out, but overall it makes a nice texture. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful composition, and the crop resulted in a big improvement. I frankly don't care about the degree of sharpness of the trees in a photo that's so based on the rhythm of the eyes moving around the picture frame that that abstract element is much more important than the details on the individual trees. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, no wow for me, per Puelle. --Karelj (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Hermione (ship, 2014), Sète 2018 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 07:25:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Unfortunately even very small things can disturb a photo. Might be hard to clone these out though. --Cart (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice blue hour shot. --Code (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. The yellow flag looking like a ghost is more disturbing than the garbage bins, but both attract the eyes immediately after the ship. They're located in front, just in the middle. Also I wonder if this saturated blue is not overprocessed -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per above, the subject is though FP-worthy. I wonder whether it would have been possible to take the image from the front Poco2 12:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Cart. Once you see those, you can't unsee them. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Caecum vitreum 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2018 at 03:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
  •   Info : No, it is NOT what you think it is on the first sight! 😉 It is a 1.9 millimetre long shell of a tiny sea snail.
    Created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 03:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Impressive for a photo of such a small shell. How did you even see this to collect it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    •   Info For such small shells I take a handful of sand at the beach and then I search under a binocular microscope sand grain for sand grain for several hours. --Llez (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The quality is not there, but the similarity with the "object" is amazing and very funny. Nice find -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Basile, this one is far below the quality you usually present here. Clearly it is more challeging to get there for tiny objects but I believe that there is room for improvement, sorry Poco2 12:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment I agree that the quality of the shell photos I usually present here is better. But I please you to note, that such tiny objects can not be photographed with a normal camera. All my photos of tiny shells, see for example the Caecidae or Rissoidae photos, are made with a binocular microscope, which does never reach (and is also not comparable with) the quality of pictures of a good "normal" camera. --Llez (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Ok, I strike through my vote as I've no experience in this kind of photography, and therefore I don't really feel qualified to judge the result Poco2 18:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually I've that lens (and in that cat there are a few QIs of mine) but so far I just used it outdoors, which is really hard. I'll try to take some studio images of tiny objects with my 5DS R, I didn't try that yet. Poco2 18:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Info For the shell photos I normally use a 60mm Tamron Macro objective, which is comparable to the Canon lens mentioned above. This objective is useful for objects (e.g. shells) down to 6 mm (of course I made this photo with the 60mm Macro). All objects, which are smaller can't be photographed picture-filling any more, for you can't go closer to the object. This means, the smaller the object, the smaller is the object on the photo and the more empty space you have (and the more quality loss you have). Therefore I use for objects smaller than 6 mm not a normal camera with macro lens but an UCMOS 14000KPA camera (4096 x 3288 px) in combination with a microscope or a binocular mircoscope respectively, which allows picture filling photos of objects from 6 mm down to 10 μm (!), an object size, which is impossible to photograph with a normal macro lens. All my photos of shells, of which the size is below 7 mm, are made with the UCMOS 14000KPA. --Llez (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I've added two categories : Pareidolias and Condoms. If not in the description, what makes this picture special should be mentioned somewhere on the file page, I think -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Llez's response to Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Guéthary - Port -BT- 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 21:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Three buffaloes heads above water in Si Phan Don.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 15:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, these water buffaloes got their name from this particular behavior. They're often cooling themselves in the water (or in the mud), when the weather is hot -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Very strong oppose These working animals have ropes inserted through their noses and we should not be celebrating this abusive (though traditional) practice. Charles (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, that's a point. It seems that I'm too urban to see this. Charles, did you notice that you've put 'support' in your oppose? --Basotxerri (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • For now this vote is more a green support than a strong oppose   but to answer your comment, Charles, these domestic buffaloes are not enclosed and then free to graze and move where they want. I think such practices are more respectful than to park them in a small enclosure like in other areas in the world. But these are not wild animals, contrary to what it seems ! And concerning the rope in their noses, Wikipedia says "Bulls, especially, are powerful and sometimes unpredictable animals which, if uncontrolled, can kill or severely injure a human handler". Also I don't encourage any practice just taking this picture, I was passing by this river bank, and met these animals starring at me like big sharks, that made me shoot -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes an innocently-taken image can reveal animal cruelty. Could I suggest you have a look at these online comments on what's behind this photo: one; two
  • Charles, are you ok? You vote with the wrong symbol, you confuse wiki-link code with external link code and you don't sign your comment. I have fixed the links for you though. Hope you are taking care of yourself, --Cart (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm just committed to animal welfare and I hope we all are. When I'm cross, I make more mistakes! Sorry. Charles (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Good to hear, you had me worried there for a while. The Wiki-project needs good photos of everything. Remaining neutral when judging good photos or good text in articles can sometimes be very hard when the content goes against our own feelings on the subject. Good photos are supposed to extract emotions from us and make us think. --Cart (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You are right, but this well-composed image was taken in good faith just to be an interesting shot, which it is. A close-up of the ropes piercing the animals' heads would be very acceptable if the caption described what was being depicted. To give another example, it would not be acceptable (in my view) to nominate a pretty picture of very young children sewing colourful carpets without mentioning the abusive practice of child labour. Charles (talk) 07:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Well then, the solution would be to add neutral information about this part of the photo, since it is possible to extract closeups from this photo (one of the reasons why FPs are in hi-res). Let's see if I can fix that so that all parties will be satisfied. My edit can of course be removed or tweaked. --Cart (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Totally agree to mention this nose rope in the description. I also added a link to the Bubalus bubalis, which is the main subject. However, I don't think this picture is the right place to debate about the nose ring, the Wikipedia article is much more appropriate to the discussion (in favor or against), and a link to the page might be enough, I think. Then I changed the description accordingly to the vision I have about this image. Thanks for the contributions -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • That's ok, but in the new edit you instead inserted a personal comment and veiwpoint ("At this bank, starring at the camera like three sharks, or like three attentive observers, they're rather funny to look at, as if they were expecting something from their group photograph.") That should be removed since it doesn't belong in a neutral image description, please do so. Let the viewer form their own oppinion about the photo. Like if this photo was to be used in an article about nose ropes, that's not the sort of comment you'd want accompanying the picture. --Cart (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I took the liberty to write it's funny because I'm not the only one to find so, reading the others. And concerning your idea about nose ropes, reading the Wikipedia page, there is not (yet) people against -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just because there are at least two people finding something funny, does not mean it is so for everyone. I for one don't find this funny at all. But it's a good picture. Image descriptions should be neutral, that's how encyclopedic material works. If you don't like to have other people's values in an image text, you should not impose your values either. --Cart (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)~
  • No problem, I'm fine with the description now -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Basile, it would be best to add the new descriptions in French, too, when you have the chance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, slowly, slowly... First get a consensus on the text in English, then translate -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I saw once one water buffalo gone berserk... and out of control. In this case, better not to stay close... The rope in the nose is a necessary security feature for every one. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Camaleão - Polychrus marmoratus.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 12:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Phalaenopsis Cultivar Mini 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2018 at 10:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info @Charlesjsharp: This is very close to the original, no photoshopping here. Put the flower on the desk with a dark purple background, and put the flash in a position so that it illuminates the bloom from the back – that's the trick. Create a focus stack, increase the contrast a bit, and do some sharpening. That's it. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  Support thanks very much. Charles (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thanks for your support vote, but please sign it correctly! --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
whoops! fixed now, thanks for the ping --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae

File:Caerphilly Castle south.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2018 at 21:10:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#United_Kingdom
  •   Info created by DeFacto - uploaded by DeFacto - nominated by DeFacto -- -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -- DeFacto (talk). 21:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tozina (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support High quality, but I would crop a little off the bottom (keeping all the reflection) and get rid off the remaining grass bottom right. Charles (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good for QI, but not that good light, harsh shadows, sorry --A.Savin 00:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I actually like the harsh shadows... they help accentuate the function/character of a fortress --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the light either, it almost looks overexposed.--Peulle (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Further, I'm wondering if a long exposure could have created a better reflection of the building. Or a shot on a less windy day. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Tempered support Basotxerri has a point, but until we get that picture I'm OK with this one. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A possible FP-composition, but the light does not impressed me --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Powerlines at the crossroads.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2018 at 21:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info Powerlines always give me a sort of "badlands" vibe, so I shot this crossing while the grass was still dry after winter and the deciduous trees still bare. (soundtrack) All by me, -- Cart (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support The lower left corner is kind of distorted and blurry, but that's not what this picture is about. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support for me a simple and balanced line game.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:KAS-Wiederaufbau-Bild-4-4.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2018 at 09:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Larrun - Le Petit Train -BT- 01.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2018 at 17:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#France
  •   Info All by me. -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment ...and again a vanishing point but this one goes downwards. I'm not sure about the FP category, for me it's an object but it might fit in Land vehicles. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. The detail leaves something to be desired, but otherwise great view and the overhead line even appears symmetric to the track. --A.Savin 20:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is indeed a great view, but for me the technical quality is not high enough to be called one of the best images on Commons. On a side note, I think the category should be "places" or something.--Peulle (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Alexander. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with A.Savin. — Draceane talkcontrib. 13:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just not working for me, not sure why. -- Colin (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 21:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ralf Roleček 22:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle. --Karelj (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


Planning (9e jour après proposition)Edit

Tue 10 Apr → Thu 19 Apr
Wed 11 Apr → Fri 20 Apr
Thu 12 Apr → Sat 21 Apr
Fri 13 Apr → Sun 22 Apr
Sat 14 Apr → Mon 23 Apr
Sun 15 Apr → Tue 24 Apr
Mon 16 Apr → Wed 25 Apr
Tue 17 Apr → Thu 26 Apr
Wed 18 Apr → Fri 27 Apr
Thu 19 Apr → Sat 28 Apr