Open main menu

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. Les 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

Contents

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:Cream and red coffee cup-shaped balconies, Niimi Tableware, Kappabashi Dougu Street, Tokyo, Japan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 01:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Eastern great egret (Ardea alba modesta) stretching its neck and preening.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 01:54:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support per King. --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Farr 40 sailboat racing off Newport Beach by Don Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2019 at 15:55:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hello Don and welcome back to FPC. Unfortunately the system with codes and Bots and everything is not designed for nominating an "Alt" the way you did, so I've tweaked the code for you. An Alt is almost always just another version of the original nomination, like a cropped or otherwise fixed version. You are very welcome to add the other photo in another nom, just remember only two at a time. --Cart (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Vulpes vulpes Mallnitz 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2019 at 05:54:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Porters Pass with Big Ben Range, Torlesse Range, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2019 at 00:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#New_Zealand
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. The panorama displays Porters Pass, 'the third-highest point on the South Island's state highway network'. I quite like that the state highway crosses the whole image - from the point where I'm standing it's probably the best point where to take a picture of the highway from. Snowy Ben More, the highest point of Big Ben Range, is a nice bonus. -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Cabo de Buena Esparanza, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-23, DD 74-80 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 19:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Peninsula, South Africa. The Cape was believed to be the southern tip of Africa, based on the misbelief that it's the dividing point between Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The southernmost point of Africa is Cape Agulhas about 150 kilometres (93 mi) to the east-southeast, but this spot is still a cool one :) c/u/n by me, --Poco2 19:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Nice view. Would you be keen to share a bit of know-how? :) I'm quite curious how you made the horizon so straight. Besides that, there are visible copyediting places (see the notes). --Podzemnik (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment A challenging subject, not only in terms of the horizon, but also on the waves. I have detected an inconsistency. --Milseburg (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just a nitpick but wouldn't the description be more precise if it was something like "The western/-erly view from Cape of Good Hope" as, technically speaking, the actual cape is pretty much behind of the position you shot this from (where the lighthouses etc are)? -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've fixed the stitching issue around the waves (Milseburg), sharpened one frame (Iifar), removed a editing line (Podzemnik), cleaned a bit of the area over the horizon on the left (Podzemnik) and improved the description (KennyOMG). Poco2 18:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC) PD: and the line at the top right border (Iifar) along with dust spots Poco2 20:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would like very much to like it as it captures that end-of-the-earth ne plus ultra feeling that is much in evidence around Cape Town, but it's unsharp, seemingly slightly shaken, in the middle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Beelitz Abandoned Building.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 18:23:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info created by Wendelin Jacober - uploaded and nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 18:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 18:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blown highlights, looks overprocessed unfortunately, CAs and strong chroma noise. Perspectives could also be better at the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice location, but technically flawed per Basile. --Peulle (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info I managed to fix it up a bit and add some more info to it, not sure if it's enough though. Anyway, here is the file if you want it. It's a cool place and a huge file so some imperfections might be forgiven. --Cart (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It was going so well until the right third ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Frauenstein Schloss Frauenstein Ost-Ansicht 15082019 6966.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 18:10:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Old World swallowtail (Papilio machaon gorganus) underside Italy.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 11:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Papilionidae
  •   Info There are three existing FPs of the underside of this species (and one topside and one mating). I think this FP and this one should both be delisted. This image is FP quality and has the forewing in focus, but is a photo of an elderly butterfly with faded colours and damaged tails. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Please feel free to start delist nominations. As one of the preeminent nature photographers on Commons, I think your opinion counts for something. It remains to be seen if the Community agrees, but that's why we have the voting system.--Peulle (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. See above. Charles (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Too bad it's f/5.6 or the wingtips would have been sharp, too. Still great. --Axel Tschentscher (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have FPX'd the other two delists. The rules are clear. Delist "is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". Charles is attempting an illegal "delist and replace" over three nominations (and only two active nominations are permitted and Charles currently has four). The D&R of "better photos of the same subject" is a Wikipedia thing, because they generally only have one lead image. Let's not bring that practice here, where images that are fine but considered inferior to a new one are routinely delisted. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have not done an illegal "delist and replace". I have listed two images for delisting as suggested by Peulle. The rules state "There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations." So can I ask someone else to check out Colin's actions, please. I may be wrong. Charles (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • As noted elsewhere, I incorrectly assumed the two-nominations applied to both kind rather than independently. The other two remain FPX'd because they are an illegal "delist and replace" albeit spread over three nominations. The rules for delist state "it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". This should be quite clear. We have countless nominations where photographers indicate existing FPs of their subject/topic, claim theirs is better or different and worthy of a gold star, and do not go about eliminating all the others. It just isn't done and would require consensus for a rule change to permit it. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a good addition to the other FPs of this butterfly. --Cart (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. "It's a good addition to the other FPs of this butterfly." -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry to oppose, but half the wing is out of focus. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's the forewing. Charles (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Citrus flower 2019-06-13 09-54-06 (C)-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Tried to fix it. Thanks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:VST image of the spectacular star-forming region Messier 17 (Omega Nebula).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 17:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info created by ESO/INAF-VST/OmegaCAM - OmegaCen/Astro-WISE/Kapteyn Institute, uploaded by Stas1995, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Extraordinary. Worth viewing in full size. Cmao20 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Aasish Shah (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Most of my 20MPx night shots are noiser than this :) --Podzemnik (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bandits Roost, 59 and a half Mulberry Street.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 15:59:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:African Leopard Near Otavi Waterhole Etosha Namibia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 07:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
  •   Info African leopard awaking from nap. Leopard collection lacks sharp images with face detail. Upload etc. by Axeltschentscher (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 09:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support There are four FPs of the African leopard on Commons: this, which I wouldn't have voted for as the colour balance seems unnatural and the contrast is too high, this quite different action-shot by Poco, this which is a great photo but a rather unfortunate specimen, and this which is a clear FP but isn't sharp on the face. Therefore I think this photo fills a niche we don't have, per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Agree cmao. I'd delist the one with the off colour balance. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice, but really very small --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Friesach Dominikanerkirche Johannesaltar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 05:44:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Playing in the Nuba mountains.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 00:55:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The ground in the left background appears to have a tilt, but the right foreground looks level, I so I think that the photo doesn't need a tilt correction, but others are welcome to comment regarding this point. --Pine (✉) 01:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support awesome. Good to have something like that on commons --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I asked the uploader if he could upload the photo in its full size. But for me it's already FP - kind of an image where you don't pixel peep. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A unique capture. Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • S for   Support and "Superb"! -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Clearly tilted in ccw direction Poco2 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral too much in shadow. I don't see what's so special about this photo. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I really do want to know what's going on here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:CarduelisChlorisBerry.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 20:11:25
 

  •   Info In my opinion, the quality of this image is not on par with our standards today. Plus, we have another featured picture of the same species and same sex, which is better IMO. (Original nomination) --Boothsift 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist -- Boothsift 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist I agree; this image has compression artefacts as well as a fairly low resolution for 2019 standards, and the bird is only a small part of the photo. I don't think this is one of the best images on Commons, and it has been a long time since it was voted such.--Peulle (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per others. This is a clear case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Indeed this is definitely not FP, the quality and detail are poor. Cmao20 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Clearly not an FP anymore. Good find -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist as others. Charles (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist as others. Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist .--Vulphere 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Piri Ries Cairo Map.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 18:04:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
  •   Info created by Piri Ries - uploaded by MichelBakni - nominated by MichelBakni -- MichelBakni (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Supportباسم (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... no, I'm not too wowed. The resolution is not very high and I'm not impressed by the level of detail (although I'm not sure how much of that is from the actual drawing).   Oppose --Peulle (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but, interesting as this is, it doesn't match up to some recent digitisations in terms of image quality and amount of detail preserved. Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info It‘s actually Piri Reis. —Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shortcomings evident even at thumb. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bloemknop van een Alcea x Althaea ‘Park Rondell’. 02-08-2019. (d.j.b). 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 15:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family Malvaceae.
  •   Info Flower bud of an Alcea x Althaea ‘Park Rondell’ covered with raindrops. A nice double fixed (sterile) hollyhock.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fabulous Seven Pandas (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I might like a bit more room on the bottom and right, depending on what else was there, but the resolution, such that we can see all those little hairs, is amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  22:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very nice picture and great quality, but the red dots in the left upper corner are disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:2013-09-19 14-30-57-collegiale-thann-PA00085696.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 13:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
  •   Info created & uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting motif, sharp at lower but still high resolution (12.7 megapixels). IMO marginally overexposed, though, as the details at the bottom are slightly too washed-out. Cmao20 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree that the brightness is too high (I appreciate some elements of the stonework have been cleaned and are brighter than others). Lacking embedded colour profile. -- Colin (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Really gorgeous motif. I'll see if ComputerHotline addresses any of the comments above, as I'd like to be able to support this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral, per above comments. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Really a gorgeous motif, the composition is OK, but details should be sharper: the image is not as crisp as this motif deserves. Looks like the lens did not resolve details fine enough to take full advantage of the resolution of the sensor. --Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Aristeas please note this is a 64MP stitched panorama, composed of many frames taken by the camera. ComputerHotline has chosen not to downsize the result, whereas some others do. There is an impressive amount of detail captured here, even if the result looks a bit soft if you pixel-peep. The lens/sensor resolving concern should really be reserved for equipment reviews IMO. Per User:Colin/PixelPeeping the increasing resolution of sensors perversely means we are less satisfied with the results at 100% even though the actual overall image is better and more detailed. This image contains more detail than any normal 24MP camera could capture in a single frame even with a great lens. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
      You are right, so I delete my vote. Sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Prunus avium duracina - flowers - Sasbach.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 06:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:View to Castle Hill Peak from Red Peak, Torlesse Range, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 21:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:T-centralen metro station december 2017 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 11:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Asahi Breweries headquarters building with the Asahi Flame and Skytree at blue hour with full moon, Sumida-ku, Tokyo, Japan.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 03:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's like the building is pointing at the moon. Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition with the flame pointing at the moon. Pity you didn't blend it to preserve the details on the moon though... -- King of ♠ 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. Do you mean I could have taken two pictures, one darker than the other, so as to recover the highlights? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit per King. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 04:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - A bizarre architectural ensemble and maybe a bit dystopic to my taste, but an excellent and well-composed document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture#Japan

File:PIA19048 realistic color Europa mosaic.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2019 at 11:33:52
 

  • It could also be argued that an upscale is a major digital change, so should've been added with Template:Retouched image before being listed as a candidate, as per FPC guide.
  • As zooming in unnecessarily decreases the overall quality of the image, it is unlikely to meet several points of COM:IG, such as noise, color and editing. This featured version suffers from severe chromatic aberrations and a jagged planet edge which the original does not. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- BevinKacon (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist because upscaling is pointless as it does nothing except adds file size without improvement in the actual detail preserved. That said, before this goes any further, may I suggest a delist-and-replace instead, replacing this one with the original non-upscaled image? The original still meets minimum size requirements and is by far the sharpest and best quality image of Europa on the internet. Cmao20 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep@BevinKacon:@Cmao20:@Daniel Case:Much of the commentary above is inaccurate. In the case of the "original nomination", the image had not been upsampled at that point, and the nomination failed, with one respondent as well as the moderator commenting on the supposedly inadequate size of the image. In the second nomination in Commons, after upsampling, the upscaling was prominently mentioned prior to the voting in the first line of the description, as follows:
"Uploader's notes: the original NASA TIFF image has been modified by increasing linear pixel dimensions by a factor of 1.6 (to bring out fine detail), sharpening and conversion to JPEG format."
Given that, the template would have been largely redundant. Note that the non-upsampled version is now listed separately.
In the case of the Wikipedia vote, there were three votes in favor of the upsampled version (The NMI User, myself, and Bammesk), not just one (the latter voted for both versions), and four votes in favor of the non-upsampled version (again counting Bammesk). The non-upsampled version was promoted to FP short of the required five votes, so due process was not followed in that case. Due process was followed in the Commons vote, with 11 votes in favor and one opposed. What justification can there be to reverse this decision?
As for the supposed "severe" defects in the upsampled version, please demonstrate the difference with screen captures. Regarding the upsampling being "pointless", on the contrary, it was combined with sharpening to make the fine geological detail more easily visible, as I will demonstrate in a subsequent post. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Please carefully examine, at full scale, this image: Comparison of mosaics
which contains corresponding sections of the 2 mosaics, if you want to try to understand why I or someone else might have the temerity to upsample and sharpen an image. By way of introduction, the ice-covered surface of Europa is covered with an extraordinary set of fascinating geological features, including the so-called lineae, linear features that form on a variety of scales via a tectonic process. Now, please look at the smallest lineae and other features visible in the images. From my perspective, the ability to see and appreciate the profusion of small lineae is greatly enhanced in the 1.6x upsampled image. These features of course are real, not artifacts. A lot of the lineae that are easily visible from a normal viewing distance at the larger scale are only visible at the smaller scale if you press your nose up to the monitor, and in some cases not even then. Since these geologic features are, from my perspective, and the perspective of others interested in planetary geology, the most interesting aspect of the image, the value gained in making them much more easily visible outweighs any cost incurred in terms of greater chromatic aberration and/or more jagged edges. It is normal for editing processes to have both benefits and costs, and the net result is a benefit in this case in my opinion. Given that the upsampled version got 11 votes and went on to become a POTY finalist while the non-upsampled version only got 6 and was not promoted in Commons, it seems some others agree with me. WolfmanSF (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep This was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2018, I don't think it would be a great idea to delist this picture. --Boothsift 04:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep per others. (And shouldn't the "oppose" votes be "keep", so as not to confuse things?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info WolfmanSF and Boothsift per Ikan's comment, could you please use the 'keep' or 'delist' in this nomination. 'Oppose' or 'support' are for normal FCP noms. Thanks, --Cart (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry but I don't buy these arguments. Although due process was technically followed in the commons vote, the nominator did not mention in the nomination that the image was upsampled, and nor did the voters appear to be aware of this. Therefore, I do think the criteria for a delist nomination are satisfied, and that it's appropriate to ask us to think again. WolfmanSF, I understand now why you decided to upsample, but to me this is an argument only for keeping the upsampled version on Commons, not for featuring it instead of the original. Ultimately all the detail is there in the original photo, and upsampling could easily be done client-side if anyone wishes to view the lineae in higher resolution. Therefore my vote remains to delist, and ideally to replace with the original. Cmao20 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, which "criteria are satisfied'? Where does it state that a nominator must mention image edits in the nomination, in addition to in the image description? One of the voters (the only negative vote in the 11-1 vote) did mention, and provided a link to, the alternate (original, non-upsampled) version. There is also a rule, "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support", and the upsampled version got 11 votes while the original got 6. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Keep per others.--Vulphere 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


File:20131013-22. Kokneses pils, rudens.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  •   Info Koknese Castle, a partially-submerged castle complex in Koknese, Latvia, dating from the thirteenth century. created by KarlitoWiki - uploaded by KarlitoWiki - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice find. --Podzemnik (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: gorgeous colours and nice composition, but too soft --СССР (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per CCCP - also, I would have liked to see more of the reflection in the water for better balance.--Peulle (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition, great light and colours. Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice colors, but there's no shortage of autumn FPs and we don't have to promote one that falls slightly short on technical standards. -- King of ♠ 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is autumn mood, but otherwise not much that would make me say wow. Sorry. --A.Savin 02:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very colourful but not much to see.--Ermell (talk) 06:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per A.Savin --Boothsift 04:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:SenatorWetmoreInAutomobile retouched.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 23:11:38
 


File:Swayambhunath Stupa -Kathmandu Nepal-0336.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 21:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

@СССР, Famberhorst:   Done Thank you -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition looks disorganized to me, with the corners of the temple on the right being cut off and the stone structures on the bottom not really coming together to direct the viewer's eyes to the golden temple. -- King of ♠ 01:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I don't like the crops on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - good click from such a narrow place.--Biplab Anand (Talk) 09:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Aasish Shah (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Although cropping (cut off on the right) is a bit issue here, but overall looks good to me. IMO, sometimes photography is difficult from such a narrow place. I think, we can keep it. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 13:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Something was not working in this picture at first sight in my view, then King and Ikan put words on it: the right crop, yes. Not okay, sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp from foreground to background, and dispite a lot of people, tourists are not disturbing. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bonnet Macaque DSC 1125.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 18:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  •   Info created & uploaded by Shankar Raman - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 10 years old picture but still stands out for me. Big wow. --Podzemnik (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Podzemnik. Cmao20 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Shot at the right time -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. (Minor point: I think it's evident the monkey is in fact yawning, so I wouldn't use scare quotes around that word in the file description.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really poor quality. Nothing in focus. Look at the teeth. Charles (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Not perfectly crisp, yet not particularly bad either. I wouldn't go as far to say "really poor quality". And it's surely an unusual photo. --A.Savin 02:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 26-27 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 10:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It's the worst on the top left, actually, I added a note. --СССР (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
СССР: Still surprised to categorize that as "strong CA", but anyhow, it's gone. The right side is also "fixed" since I've cropped it Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It's neither gone nor looking any different, actually. --СССР (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll be home tonight and will check it again with a better and calibrated screen. If there's actually room for improvement regarding the CA, I'll upload a new version latest tomorrow. Poco2 10:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
СССР:   New version uploaded. I checked though the former version on my usual screen and still cannot share the severity of CA traces here Poco2 18:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The angle is not as striking as the former POTY finalist, but the resolution is better (I suspect the other image is cropped from a wide-angle shot to minimise distortion at the edges). Overall the composition is sufficiently different for a new FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think this could work with some of the clouds cropped off the top (and corresponding crops to the bottom and sides to better center the church), As it is I feel like putting my hand to my forehead to shield my eyes as I view this. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    Daniel Case: I've applied a cropped overall but rather than doing it the same way at each side, I did it considering the content Poco2 08:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose it's good, but existing FP-s with same subject are much better. --Ivar (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Ivar. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per Ivar. Yann (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

File:North-west facade of the Castle of Chambord 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good quality, and I like that it shows the castle from a different angle to usual, but I think too much of the image is in shadow. I'm also not overly sold on the people and I think it would have been better if you could have waited for them to leave. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    I was lucky that so few tourists were in the picture. This is the Chambord castle, where is always the tourists. Tournasol7 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I don't mind the tourists; I've been one and they're not taking away from the image. However, I think you could crop a little tighter to get rid of some of the distracting elements of the foreground (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Daniel Case.--Vulphere 03:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much of the foreground is in shadow. -- King of ♠ 01:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per King of Hearts --Boothsift 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Grand'Rue in Colmar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2019 at 08:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 08:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Very weak oppose A lot to recommend it, but I think it would look better in stronger light. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Were it not for the cars, this could be a painting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 03:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree the cars are a big negative and likely need to get up early to avoid them but that's what the postcard photographers do. Wrt looking like a painting, yes this doesn't look like a photo. It has been overprocessed, with a very heavy hand on the Lightroom sliders. Compare File:Colmar (31617330537).jpg. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The cars, the cars, why the cars? --Boothsift 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I think this is a fine composition, including the cars, but Colin's point about processing gives me pause. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Microcentrum retinerve Mex2019.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2019 at 13:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
  •   Info created by Cvmontuy - uploaded by Cvmontuy - nominated by Cvmontuy -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cvmontuy (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice wings (or should we say leaves?), but not the head out of focus. The framing is also not optimal in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Basile, not bad though and an interesting subject. Cmao20 (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yes wings are good, but head is not in focus and the framing is odd. Charles (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per above. -- King of ♠ 01:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Die Schöllenen Schlucht mit Teufelsbrücke im schweizerischen Kanton Uri.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Indeed, the stitching errors are still visible, as CCCP points out. Have added notes to show the worst-affected areas. Cmao20 (talk) 12:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support now that errors are fixed. It's a shame that we've still got that sudden transition between the sharp and the unsharp area, but that's something you only see if you pixel peep. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Composition does not work for me. I'd need more sky, maybe more to the right or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment: the errors are still present; would gladly support otherwise. --СССР (talk) 05:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basile and СССР.--Ermell (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree the composition isn't working. Just a bit jumbled. And there are still large stitching errors and it looks like some of your frames are blurry, which isn't fixable unless you have more frames to choose. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I see the image has been changed considerably, including the composition. Wolfgang Moroder, you should really ping those who have voted already after making such big changes -- this is no longer the same photo. Unfortunately the problems with stitching remain and aren't minor. The biggest remaining problem is angles and verticles. Look at the nearest bridge right-hand-side. Compare File:Teufelsbrücke (Devil's Bridge) high in the Swiss Alps.JPG. The upper line of bricks should fall at an angle (the edge is not vertical) but is a straight line, whereas in this photo is is seriously bowed and changes direction. The lower two sections of bricks should have a vertical edge, but here slope considerably. Compare also the right hand side of the photo with the railings and little tunnel -- the vertical walls and rails aren't vertical. There are quite a lot of blurry areas which mostly are hard to spot if I downsize 50% to 24MP, but aren't so much a reason to oppose than to wonder why upload at full res if the quality isn't there. In my experience a hand-held panorama is possible to FP level, but a big gamble and I take many extra frames to try to ensure success. Here I don't think the gamble succeeded, and a wide-angle lens would have created a more reliably accurate picture. -- Colin (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment The perfect photo does not exist. Who cares for the vertical lines, angles and rails if you almost don't notice them. This is not an architectural photo where perfect vertical lines are requested. But, if you don't like the water, the bridges and the rocks, the misty sky and the overall atmosphere of this photo as I and some others do, just feel free to oppose, no problem. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    I agree that the perfect architectural standards should not necessarily apply to a landscape photo. And the composition has improved with the edit. I just don't think it is among our finest, with these flaws: we are not short of landscape FPs. -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done @Colin:, @Peulle:, @Boothsift:, @Daniel Case: Thanks for the comments and support. I uploaded a new version without (I hope) stitching errors and different crop. Please feel free to revise your support. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are still significant errors in this third version, at the top right corner, three long black oblique lines. I did not inspect the whole image deeply because it's quite a thankless job to look for such technical flaws with so large images, but I think at least these obvious mistakes should be fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC) Power lines -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
      Comment Not an error, those are overhead power lines.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - You fixed the compositional problem very effectively, in a different way than I thought of. Kudos! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 09:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 01:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At least one of the stitched frames is unsharp, and some minor stitching error, see notes --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose blurry frame(s) spoils it. --Ivar (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ivar. Really fine idea, composition AND lighting, but the blurry frame covering most of the top bridge, along with serious stitching flaws, spoils it for me, betraying the general high resolution – think of a great orchestra with but one musician producing wrongful notes. They are not going to win any prize. --Kreuzschnabel 23:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Ansberg Blickrichtung Süden 120324.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2019 at 08:16:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info View from the Ansberg in Franconian Switzerland southward. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd be interesting to see the frame divided exactly into 3 parts of the same hight (trees, mountains, sky) but this is still working for me. Simple, pretty, nice colours. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Idyllic. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice but remove the big dust spot and the minor spots in the sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nevertheless--Boothsift 22:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Pretty, but the composition doesn't work for me. The hills would, but the trees kind of just sit there and interfere, so it seems like two separate ideas in two layers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Ikan. We often use foreground to lead into the distance, but here they seem to form a barrier. I tried a crop like Podzemnik considered (e.g. 16:9 excluding bottom) which makes the trees a layer of fire at the bottom, but still unconvinced. We have so many layered mountain views at FP, this one isn't quite working. -- Colin (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the reverse leading to infinity. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin. The idea is good, but I think a 4:3 aspect ratio is not the most effective way to convey it. You can either go wide (at least 8:5) to emphasize the horizontal lines, or make it a vertical composition to emphasize the different layers (on this particular image that might not work so well as there are not enough layers to do that, but I'm saying in general for these types of compositions). -- King of ♠ 01:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, and no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Colin and Kind of Hearts -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per King of Hearts. The foreground covering nearly half of the frame is not a composition that works for me here. Btw, there’s at least one really HUGE dust spot in the sky, and there seems to be considerable colour banding and sharpened noise speckles … tut tut, I am pixelpeeping again. --Kreuzschnabel 23:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


Contestations en coursEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Cream and red coffee cup-shaped balconies, Niimi Tableware, Kappabashi Dougu Street, Tokyo, Japan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 01:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Eastern great egret (Ardea alba modesta) stretching its neck and preening.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2019 at 01:54:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support per King. --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Farr 40 sailboat racing off Newport Beach by Don Ramey Logan.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2019 at 15:55:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hello Don and welcome back to FPC. Unfortunately the system with codes and Bots and everything is not designed for nominating an "Alt" the way you did, so I've tweaked the code for you. An Alt is almost always just another version of the original nomination, like a cropped or otherwise fixed version. You are very welcome to add the other photo in another nom, just remember only two at a time. --Cart (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Vulpes vulpes Mallnitz 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2019 at 05:54:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Porters Pass with Big Ben Range, Torlesse Range, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2019 at 00:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places#New_Zealand
  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. The panorama displays Porters Pass, 'the third-highest point on the South Island's state highway network'. I quite like that the state highway crosses the whole image - from the point where I'm standing it's probably the best point where to take a picture of the highway from. Snowy Ben More, the highest point of Big Ben Range, is a nice bonus. -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Cabo de Buena Esparanza, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-23, DD 74-80 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 19:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Panoramic view of the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Peninsula, South Africa. The Cape was believed to be the southern tip of Africa, based on the misbelief that it's the dividing point between Atlantic and Indian Oceans. The southernmost point of Africa is Cape Agulhas about 150 kilometres (93 mi) to the east-southeast, but this spot is still a cool one :) c/u/n by me, --Poco2 19:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 19:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Nice view. Would you be keen to share a bit of know-how? :) I'm quite curious how you made the horizon so straight. Besides that, there are visible copyediting places (see the notes). --Podzemnik (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 00:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment A challenging subject, not only in terms of the horizon, but also on the waves. I have detected an inconsistency. --Milseburg (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just a nitpick but wouldn't the description be more precise if it was something like "The western/-erly view from Cape of Good Hope" as, technically speaking, the actual cape is pretty much behind of the position you shot this from (where the lighthouses etc are)? -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've fixed the stitching issue around the waves (Milseburg), sharpened one frame (Iifar), removed a editing line (Podzemnik), cleaned a bit of the area over the horizon on the left (Podzemnik) and improved the description (KennyOMG). Poco2 18:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC) PD: and the line at the top right border (Iifar) along with dust spots Poco2 20:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would like very much to like it as it captures that end-of-the-earth ne plus ultra feeling that is much in evidence around Cape Town, but it's unsharp, seemingly slightly shaken, in the middle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Beelitz Abandoned Building.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 18:23:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  •   Info created by Wendelin Jacober - uploaded and nominated by Boothsift -- Boothsift 18:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Boothsift 18:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blown highlights, looks overprocessed unfortunately, CAs and strong chroma noise. Perspectives could also be better at the left -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice location, but technically flawed per Basile. --Peulle (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info I managed to fix it up a bit and add some more info to it, not sure if it's enough though. Anyway, here is the file if you want it. It's a cool place and a huge file so some imperfections might be forgiven. --Cart (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It was going so well until the right third ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Frauenstein Schloss Frauenstein Ost-Ansicht 15082019 6966.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 18:10:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Old World swallowtail (Papilio machaon gorganus) underside Italy.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2019 at 11:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Papilionidae
  •   Info There are three existing FPs of the underside of this species (and one topside and one mating). I think this FP and this one should both be delisted. This image is FP quality and has the forewing in focus, but is a photo of an elderly butterfly with faded colours and damaged tails. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Charles (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Please feel free to start delist nominations. As one of the preeminent nature photographers on Commons, I think your opinion counts for something. It remains to be seen if the Community agrees, but that's why we have the voting system.--Peulle (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. See above. Charles (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Too bad it's f/5.6 or the wingtips would have been sharp, too. Still great. --Axel Tschentscher (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have FPX'd the other two delists. The rules are clear. Delist "is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". Charles is attempting an illegal "delist and replace" over three nominations (and only two active nominations are permitted and Charles currently has four). The D&R of "better photos of the same subject" is a Wikipedia thing, because they generally only have one lead image. Let's not bring that practice here, where images that are fine but considered inferior to a new one are routinely delisted. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have not done an illegal "delist and replace". I have listed two images for delisting as suggested by Peulle. The rules state "There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations." So can I ask someone else to check out Colin's actions, please. I may be wrong. Charles (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • As noted elsewhere, I incorrectly assumed the two-nominations applied to both kind rather than independently. The other two remain FPX'd because they are an illegal "delist and replace" albeit spread over three nominations. The rules for delist state "it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images". This should be quite clear. We have countless nominations where photographers indicate existing FPs of their subject/topic, claim theirs is better or different and worthy of a gold star, and do not go about eliminating all the others. It just isn't done and would require consensus for a rule change to permit it. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's a good addition to the other FPs of this butterfly. --Cart (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cart. "It's a good addition to the other FPs of this butterfly." -- Colin (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry to oppose, but half the wing is out of focus. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's the forewing. Charles (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Citrus flower 2019-06-13 09-54-06 (C)-PSD.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment Tried to fix it. Thanks for the hint.--Ermell (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:VST image of the spectacular star-forming region Messier 17 (Omega Nebula).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 17:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy
  •   Info created by ESO/INAF-VST/OmegaCAM - OmegaCen/Astro-WISE/Kapteyn Institute, uploaded by Stas1995, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Extraordinary. Worth viewing in full size. Cmao20 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Aasish Shah (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 08:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Most of my 20MPx night shots are noiser than this :) --Podzemnik (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bandits Roost, 59 and a half Mulberry Street.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 15:59:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:African Leopard Near Otavi Waterhole Etosha Namibia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 07:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora
  •   Info African leopard awaking from nap. Leopard collection lacks sharp images with face detail. Upload etc. by Axeltschentscher (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 09:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support There are four FPs of the African leopard on Commons: this, which I wouldn't have voted for as the colour balance seems unnatural and the contrast is too high, this quite different action-shot by Poco, this which is a great photo but a rather unfortunate specimen, and this which is a clear FP but isn't sharp on the face. Therefore I think this photo fills a niche we don't have, per nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Agree cmao. I'd delist the one with the off colour balance. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice, but really very small --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Friesach Dominikanerkirche Johannesaltar 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 05:44:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Playing in the Nuba mountains.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2019 at 00:55:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The ground in the left background appears to have a tilt, but the right foreground looks level, I so I think that the photo doesn't need a tilt correction, but others are welcome to comment regarding this point. --Pine (✉) 01:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support awesome. Good to have something like that on commons --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I asked the uploader if he could upload the photo in its full size. But for me it's already FP - kind of an image where you don't pixel peep. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A unique capture. Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • S for   Support and "Superb"! -- KennyOMG (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Clearly tilted in ccw direction Poco2 16:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral too much in shadow. I don't see what's so special about this photo. Seven Pandas (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I really do want to know what's going on here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:CarduelisChlorisBerry.jpg (delist)Edit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 20:11:25
 

  •   Info In my opinion, the quality of this image is not on par with our standards today. Plus, we have another featured picture of the same species and same sex, which is better IMO. (Original nomination) --Boothsift 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist -- Boothsift 20:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist I agree; this image has compression artefacts as well as a fairly low resolution for 2019 standards, and the bird is only a small part of the photo. I don't think this is one of the best images on Commons, and it has been a long time since it was voted such.--Peulle (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per others. This is a clear case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Indeed this is definitely not FP, the quality and detail are poor. Cmao20 (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist Clearly not an FP anymore. Good find -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist as others. Charles (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist as others. Axel Tschentscher (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist .--Vulphere 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Piri Ries Cairo Map.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 18:04:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
  •   Info created by Piri Ries - uploaded by MichelBakni - nominated by MichelBakni -- MichelBakni (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Supportباسم (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... no, I'm not too wowed. The resolution is not very high and I'm not impressed by the level of detail (although I'm not sure how much of that is from the actual drawing).   Oppose --Peulle (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry but, interesting as this is, it doesn't match up to some recent digitisations in terms of image quality and amount of detail preserved. Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info It‘s actually Piri Reis. —Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Shortcomings evident even at thumb. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bloemknop van een Alcea x Althaea ‘Park Rondell’. 02-08-2019. (d.j.b). 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 15:23:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family Malvaceae.
  •   Info Flower bud of an Alcea x Althaea ‘Park Rondell’ covered with raindrops. A nice double fixed (sterile) hollyhock.
    All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fabulous Seven Pandas (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good sharpness.--Peulle (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I might like a bit more room on the bottom and right, depending on what else was there, but the resolution, such that we can see all those little hairs, is amazing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportRhododendrites talk |  22:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very nice picture and great quality, but the red dots in the left upper corner are disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 05:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco2 19:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

File:2013-09-19 14-30-57-collegiale-thann-PA00085696.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 13:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
  •   Info created & uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting motif, sharp at lower but still high resolution (12.7 megapixels). IMO marginally overexposed, though, as the details at the bottom are slightly too washed-out. Cmao20 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Agree that the brightness is too high (I appreciate some elements of the stonework have been cleaned and are brighter than others). Lacking embedded colour profile. -- Colin (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Really gorgeous motif. I'll see if ComputerHotline addresses any of the comments above, as I'd like to be able to support this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral, per above comments. Daniel Case (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Really a gorgeous motif, the composition is OK, but details should be sharper: the image is not as crisp as this motif deserves. Looks like the lens did not resolve details fine enough to take full advantage of the resolution of the sensor. --Aristeas (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Aristeas please note this is a 64MP stitched panorama, composed of many frames taken by the camera. ComputerHotline has chosen not to downsize the result, whereas some others do. There is an impressive amount of detail captured here, even if the result looks a bit soft if you pixel-peep. The lens/sensor resolving concern should really be reserved for equipment reviews IMO. Per User:Colin/PixelPeeping the increasing resolution of sensors perversely means we are less satisfied with the results at 100% even though the actual overall image is better and more detailed. This image contains more detail than any normal 24MP camera could capture in a single frame even with a great lens. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
      You are right, so I delete my vote. Sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 22:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Prunus avium duracina - flowers - Sasbach.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2019 at 06:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:View to Castle Hill Peak from Red Peak, Torlesse Range, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 21:08:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:T-centralen metro station december 2017 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 11:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Asahi Breweries headquarters building with the Asahi Flame and Skytree at blue hour with full moon, Sumida-ku, Tokyo, Japan.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2019 at 03:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's like the building is pointing at the moon. Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition with the flame pointing at the moon. Pity you didn't blend it to preserve the details on the moon though... -- King of ♠ 16:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. Do you mean I could have taken two pictures, one darker than the other, so as to recover the highlights? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A bit per King. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift 04:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 04:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - A bizarre architectural ensemble and maybe a bit dystopic to my taste, but an excellent and well-composed document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Vulphere 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)