Commons:Propositions d'images remarquables

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


Skip to current candidates Aller directement aux propositions en cours

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

Les archives des votes précédents se trouvent sur cette page.

Il existe également une liste chronologique des images remarquables.

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

ProcédureEdit

Conseils avant de proposer une imageEdit

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

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

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

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

PropositionEdit

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


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

VoteEdit

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

  • {{Pour}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Contre}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),

Ainsi que :

  • {{Neutre}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question).


IMPORTANT: veuillez notamment NE PAS UTILISER les modèles {{weak support}} (GA candidate.svg Weak support) ni {{weak oppose}} (BA candidate.svg 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}} (Symbol keep vote.svg Keep : mérite de rester "remarquable") ou {{Delist}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg 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:Grandma's room.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2016 at 00:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Grandma's room

File:Warszawa - synagoga z Gwoźdźca 2.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 21:32:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw. Reconstruction of the synagogue in Gwoździec (part)

File:Kamchatka Brown Bear near Dvuhyurtochnoe on 2015-07-23.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 12:00:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kamchatka Brown Bear
I did not noticed he removed the categories since I had put the image in my favorites, and I'm sorry too to learn the sad news Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Very strange. Anyway, I'll say that I like the bear but don't like the bokeh, so I probably wouldn't be a "Support" vote, but I'd like for Rftblr to explain why he removed the categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh my God, I'm so sorry! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    • We could remove the image description page template "Please do not upload an updated image here without consultation with the author" ??. Anyway he will be inmortal with his photographs here --The Photographer (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the bokeh could be better but the main subject is featureable imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 18:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bear is good. Back not so.--Mile (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While it’s technically good and certainly QI, I don’t see anything really special in this. The busy bokeh doesn’t help. --Kreuzschnabel 21:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent -- Jiel (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 23:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Нижня польська брама.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 10:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A Ukrainian castle. Uploaded as part of WLM 2015.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Q-lieb-in - uploaded by Q-lieb-in - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - That's a very compelling composition, but at full size, it becomes clear that parts of the picture are unsharp and, I think most disturbingly, the left side of the tower is blown and posterized. Can anything be done to ameliorate these problems, or at least those with the tower? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It could have helped to stop down a bit (f/4.5 ...) - but given the difficult composition and the inevitable weaknesses of uwa-lenses, I'll give my support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Agrell, Johan.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 10:37:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of Johan Agrell

File:Weißrückengeier Gyps africanus HP L2043.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 06:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vultures in their habitat
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC) P.S: I nominate this image, because of this point Face-wink.svg
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - My point: This isn't a super-zoomed photo of a single bird, so it can't compete in that respect with pictures in which we can see every feather, but it shows the birds in their habitat, and I like the shapes of the tree branches as well as those of the vultures and consider this a very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great idea, but the cropped branches bother me. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    If I had don't cropped the branches, so you only see only more uninteresting blu empty sky ... ?!? The valture are the main object. OK, this is only my opinion. Thanks for your voting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Launch of Falcon 9 carrying ORBCOMM OG2-M1 (16601442698).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 20:25:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket launched the ORBCOMM OG2 Mission 1 on July 14, 2014.

File:Four Falcon 9 first stages under construction.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 20:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Four Falcon 9 first stages under construction at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, CA.

File:2016.05.21.-06-Wildseemoor-Gernsbach-Kaltenbronn--Wildsee.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 20:11:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wildsee. Taken in Wildseemoor in Kaltenbronn (Gernsbach), Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hockei (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I like landscapes, but this composition, though beyond the run of the mill because of the branches in the upper foreground and shrubs in the lower foreground, is not compelling enough for me to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. QI for sure, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza (Rome) , Dome.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 19:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza (Rome) , Dome
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - A picture of a place with so little color would have to be more nearly perfect for me to want to feature it. I don't like the blown-out hazy whitish light coming from the window. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crops on the lower windows. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for the time being. The whitish light doesn't really bother me - in fact I do like the serene, almost colorless mood, but the chosen crop is a bit difficult... any chance you can give us more space on both the left and the right side? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Bemoste, geteisterde boomstronken aan voetpad naar vogelkijkhut De Schollevaar. Locatie, Oostvaardersplassen 07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 16:12:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Damaged trees.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mossy, ravaged stumps on footpath to the bird hide Schollevaar. Location, Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI for sure, but I don't see enough out of the ordinary for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice QI, but to low wow for FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I think this composition is beautiful, I love the shapes of wood in the middle, and in my opinion, this would be a good photo to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Koenigssee - St. Bartholomew's Church 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 14:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St. Bartholomew's Church (St. Bartholomä), Königssee, and the East Face of Mount Watzmann, Bavaria - part of Berchtesgaden National Park

File:Jaipur 03-2016 39 Jal Mahal - Water Palace.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 14:26:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jaipur/India: The Water Palace at evening

File:Stefano Tofanelli Family.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 07:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stefano Tofanelli Family
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I don't find this painting very interesting artistically, if this is a good reproduction, so I think I'll abstain from voting on whether a feature is justified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unless LivioAndronico can explain how this image passes the guidelines for Artworks. The painter, Stefano Tofanelli, does not qualify as a "major artist" (he gets two short paragraphs on Wikipedia). Clearly we aren't going to feature all paintings on Commons, otherwise there seems no point in having FP for paintings. This is a small (9MP) photo that is a bit noisy too. The biggest problem is that compared to Getty Images this image has had the saturation maxed out. Livio, this image has zero educational value if the colours are not faithful. -- 10:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Colin comment who forget sign --The Photographer (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
BTW, FP size requeriment is 2 MP, about color saturation and WB is another problem --The Photographer (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that, and if you can find a 2MP painting that has passed PF in the last several years, I'd be amazed. That it is 9MP isn't a fail, but it isn't anything in it's merit either. -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Currently there are established requirements, I agree that the picture is taken at the highest possible resolution of the camera, however, you can not demand a higher size for a camera that can not do that, because you're forced to buy new cameras and that's money. Size is important, however, is not everything. I can show you a big quantity 6 MB painting already FP and yes you could use another personal requeriment, however, IMHO epithets arguments should not exceed the FP requeriments pre-established. I respect your opinion, however, it is your opinion and when you use "we" in your arguments is a clear lack of consideration for those who not think the same way. --The Photographer (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You have misunderstood my point about the size. As I said in my reply above, the 9MP comment isn't a reason for my oppose, but isn't something to get excited about either -- it isn't going to be the thing that helps an otherwise average image become stellar. You know that judging is a balance of good and bad aspects, and the resolution here is "meh". You are well aware that we have many many very high resolution images of paintings, taken professionally, with hopefully professional standards of colour/brightness accuracy. Our amateur efforts have to compete with that, because that's what "finest" means. The only "we" in my comment is about this forum not featuring all paintings on Commons, so "we" isn't absolutely correct and "I" would be inappropriate. Of course it is only my opinion, and I would appreciate you striking out the nasty comment about "clear lack of consideration for those who not think the same way". The 2MP is not a "requirement" in the sense that once passed then no complaints can be made about resolution, and I'm surprised that someone here for as long as you choose to argue about that because you know full well it doesn't and never has worked that way. It's a lower limit to give nominators a clear idea of what is likely to generate an FPX. That's all. I don't "demand a higher size". Please don't put words in my mouth. If this image had accurate colours, was noise-free, was sharp and the artwork passed our criteria for FP (which this doesn't) then I wouldn't have opposed. Anyway, the camera used is 6000x4000 and this image is 3400x2665 so this is only 60% size and not even sharp. -- Colin (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
What is your minimum image size recomendation/requeriment. ? --The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no rule "If an image is X MP then that is acceptable for FP" and nor should there be. So I don't have a minimum. And please, I have now for the third time had to state that the 9MP is not a reason for my oppose. Can we take this somewhere else, as it is irrelevant to this image. -- Colin (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Compared to the rendering on Getty Images, this reproduction shows overdone colours and a completely different tone. The other version strikes me much more realistic, but since I don’t have access to the original painting, maybe the nominator could say something about colours? --Kreuzschnabel 14:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Only if the nominator show his RAW file we could imagine the "original colors". --The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
A raw file is not calibrated neutral either. It contains no information about the colour temperature of the lighting -- this must either be guessed by the software/camera or set by the user using their own judgement. It also contains no information about the correct brightness and contrast, so the image may be under-exposed for example. The only way to be sure is to use ColorChecker and ideally to have control over the lighting, which is what professionals do. Failing that, we can use other copies of the image as a reference. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I generally use a rudimentary ColorChecker Passport created by myself, however, it will be a photographer interpretation or camera representation based on internal algorithm of revelation, printer settings, camera LCD configuration, PC monitor setting and quality....A person who lived his entire life in the Caribbean may have less sensitivity to light than another person from certain Scandinavian countries. Some populations of completely separate cultures, and unrelated, living in high relief, such as Nepal and Bolivia, using live similar colors in their daily attire. --The Photographer (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colors seem off to me ... honestly, I never thought I'd be faulting a painting for CA (look at the main subject's nose) and while I was going to wait to see if this was the way it was, I couldn't find too many other versions online to compare. I was going to go with a neutral, but per the concerns of Colin and Kreuzschnabel above I don't think I need to defer. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination it's only a pic....--LivioAndronico (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Сергей Трофимович Алексеев.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2016 at 15:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Зяблицева Станислава Владимировна - uploaded by Krassotkin - nominated by Krassotkin --sasha (krassotkin) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --sasha (krassotkin) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture is over saturated in my eyes KKnoefler247 (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ~ Moheen (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Besides the fact that the depicted person is not particularly notable, I fail to see reason why this photo should be obviously ineligible for FP. Therefore it would be helpful from KKnoefler247 and Moheen Reeyad to explain their oppose. It is good tone on COM:FPC to write why oppose, except for really obvious cases. --A.Savin 20:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Done, both have commented. --A.Savin 16:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I could not find anything valuable or special. ‍‍‍‍ ~ Moheen (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose A nice job with the man, but the shadow at left is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Cappadocia Chimneys - DWiW.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2016 at 06:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Chimneys rock formation, nearby Gorëme, in Cappadocia, central Turkey"
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Turkey
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Benh, modified by Der Wolf im Wald - uploaded by Der Wolf im Wald - nominated by Pine -- Pine 06:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pine 06:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think there is a technical problem at the left corner in the sky. ‍‍‍If the shade of color is not a problem I will support. ~ Moheen (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An impressive job creating this, but the blown posterized sky noted above ruins it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Daniel where is the sky blown? It is pale in the corner, but sky does that. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
      • OK, I amend that. It is pale, yes, but it is also posterized to the point that whether it is blown or not is a distinction without a difference AFAIC. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice -- Jiel (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I find this impressive, in spite of the issues with the sky noted above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 18-20 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 20:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Well, this is an organ of more than five centuries, clearly is in the process of deterioration and IMHO what you call asymmetry is a visual effect created by the railing on the left side. --The Photographer (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the asymmetry noted by Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree - composition is out. --Mile (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Difficult shot but asymmetric. KKnoefler247 (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)*
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Kreuz. ~ Moheen (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment can sonebody explain me what is rhe opposing reason? Is it the elements on the left that are no existing on the rifht? I cannot help there then Poco2 20:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As Poco a Poco says, we can't put anything on the right side Ezarateesteban 00:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThat’s why I suggested to take a pic from a more angular view. While we cannot build another railing to symmetrize the scenery, we still can choose our point of view for a balanced composition. --Kreuzschnabel 07:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The composition looks OK to me. You folks so often object to centered compositions that are symmetrical. I really don't understand what your objection to this composition is. And angled composition sounds to me like the photo by A.Savin that got so much opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure if I am included in "you folks" but I’ll still try to answer that. As for me, there is no general bias for or against symmetrical compositions. It depends on what’s in the pic. A heavy, immobile structure as this is well served by a symmetric composition, while a fast moving object or creature isn’t. Imagine the camera moved 1 or 2 metres to the right here. Would make the composition perfect in my eyes, but might ruin it entirely in yours. Matter of taste, and personal reception of images. – Which Savin shot do you refer to? The "Palace of Winds"? I opposed that for busy foreground, not for angled view. Generally, please trust in anyone here to consider their votings as carefully as you do yours. Sometimes, we just cannot explain why the one image works while the other doesn’t. So, "does not wow me" is a plausible reason in here to oppose while it’s hard to put in words why. --Kreuzschnabel 07:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm reacting to the specific words used. "No wow" is not subject to question, no. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:2013 Cogden Bridge.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 11:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cogden Bridge, North Yorkshire
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom.E2.80.8E
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Kreuzschnabel 11:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info One of my 2013 images of the Yorkshire Dales. A small lane crossing the valley of Cogden Beck in a sharp U-curve over the old bridge. The sunlit red bracken in late october forms an eye-catching contrast to the blue sky. This bridge is quite frequently shown in the "All Creatures Great and Small" TV series :-)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kreuzschnabel 11:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cool compo and nice colors, for info a bit of CAs at far right. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, I know. Unfortunately, the M.Zuiko 2.0/12 produces considerable CAs towards the edges. I tried to remove as much as I could. --Kreuzschnabel 03:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful scenery. ~ Moheen (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colors (rusty plants play off blue sky in a way this combination should but usually doesn't) Love the curvy road and the landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice composition and colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support These colours! --Code (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose beautiful colors and composition, but when viewed at 100% this is is too grainy. --Pine 07:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I think I'm seeing what Pine sees, and that's why I don't totally love this, but it's still pretty good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It seems a little bit oversharpened, but still ok. -- -donald- (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Mary Martin in The Sound of Music by Toni Frissell.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 00:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mary Martin in The Sound of Music by Toni Frissell
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People - I honestly don't know where to categorize this. Suggestions?
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Toni Frissell - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 01:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Good question, which one. I've been thinking about it before. Black and white for sure, its good we have that category, also that is given as type of photo, while other shots refer to what is inside of photo. So i suggest puting all black and white shots also into "about category", my cycle would be transport-objects or People, this one would be People probably also... an issue to be solved. --Mile (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - A great moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As usual, I suggest a crop to avoid the centered composition. As for the image as such, it surely is a great moment well captured but also very, very unsharp and noisy. I’m not sure the historical value makes up for that. So, a regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from my side. --Kreuzschnabel 11:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Kreuzschnabel: With things like en:Template:CSS image crop, I think it's generally better to have the more-or-less uncropped be the one promoted, unless there's major issues, e.g. the Billy Strayhorn pic a while back where the closeness of the camera made the knees look very large and odd if uncropped. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Code (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. ~ Moheen (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Analogic photogram don't work with the common standard "noise" (electronic noise) definition. --The Photographer (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That doesn’t make "analog" noise more tolerable than "digital" noise. We usually don’t excuse for drawbacks just because they’re impossible to handle in postprocessing. And there have been low-noise analog photographs too --Kreuzschnabel 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
      • So, basically, I find a free-licensed photograph of a highly notable musical, and it's going to get voted down over film grain? The kids are running , so it's high-speed film. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Oh, please. Oppose in FPC doesn’t mean the picture is bad, or unusable, lacks value or anything in that direction. It just means that I don’t think it’s one of the finest images there are on Commons. And I clearly stated why. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent quality in this year. --Ralf Roleček 23:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, there were methods of obtaining finer grain back in the days – we can see that in the portraits that are nominated here quite regularly. But those are studio shots where you could choose slow films and large formats. For stuff like this, you need a fast shutter speed, so I'd guess something like Tri-X was used (400 ASA was considered fast at that time). A mobile camera probably doesn't hurt either, so probably 135 film (the aspect ratio seems to support this). Now keep in mind that the default print size for 135 film was 4×6 (10×15 cm or A6), which is smaller than the default preview size of our file description pages. This one still looks quite good at, say, 1280px on the long side. Based on my (admittedly very limited) personal experience with B&W 35mm film photography, I'm leaning towards Symbol support vote.svg supporting this as one of our finest 1950s/1960s action shots. --El Grafo (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Excellent analisis, thanks --The Photographer (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Daniel Craig McCallum by The Brady National Photographic Art Gallery.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 00:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Daniel Craig McCallum

File:Búho chico (Asio otus), Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, España, 2015-12-08, DD 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 21:39:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Close-up of a captive exemplar of Long-eared owl (Asio otus), Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Close-up of a captive exemplar of Long-eared owl (Asio otus), Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain. All by Poco2 21:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 21:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm sorry, but so little of this bird, including its head, is in focus at full size that I think this is well below the usual current standard of FP bird pictures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan. Insufficient DoF. --Kreuzschnabel 09:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan and Kreuzschnabel. I don't mind the pose and the lack of en environment—there's nothing wrong with photographing an owl as if it were sitting for its high-school yearbook. But it has to be done as well as we'd expect such a photo to be, and if my photo ran in the yearbook with my tie all blurry like this, I'd be upset. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Withdrawing before I get devorated here ;) Poco2 20:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

File:ONERA MEUDON soufflerie S1b.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 15:40:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

S1 old wind tunnel of ONERA, Meudon (near Paris), France
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Industry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ibex73 - uploaded by ibex73 - nominated by User:ibex73 -- Ibex73 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ibex73 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Strange image. If possible, it would really up the educational value if a short explanation of what we're looking at were provided. This is a structure that is used as a wind tunnel, I gather? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),The need to understand the aerodynamic phenomena, in as close as possible to reality, driven to achieve a large wind tunnel at atmospheric pressure, in Meudon. The S1 wind tunnel for testing of aircraft in real size was built from 1932 to 1934. Through the large dimensions of the test section, S1 can experiment had real 12 m wingspan, with the engine running and the driver on board. Until the 1970s, it is mainly aircraft (the Caravelle and the Concorde) but also cars (the 4 CV and the Beetle), trains, architectural elements, who have gone through the experimental chamber to be developed or improved (maximum speed 180 km / h). This 1933 building absorbs 7,000 m3 of reinforced concrete, 700 tons of iron, 1000 m3 of wood, and requires the establishment of 566 implementation plans (see old pictures on http://www.anciensonera.fr/?q=node/17). Ibex73 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Thank you. Please add that to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Albertus teolog (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unusual, and definitely a QI, but not enough wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for poor lighting. If only all of the object was sunlit. --Kreuzschnabel 09:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I like the atmospheric effect of the fog and colors, although I think it would be preferable to retake this same shot with a camera that can produce better resolution and fine detail. --Pine 07:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is now 6 years I expect extreme weather conditions to improve this picture ... Indeed, not only must it snows a lot in Paris, which is quite exceptional, but it is necessary that the sky is perfectly clear the next morning for a light fog and blue snow ... I must also be there at the right time! Ibex73 (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Err … yes. Surprised? Photography is all about light, and light is (outside the studio) all about choosing the perfect moment, time-of-day, time-of-year … and outdoor photography is much about being lucky with the weather, too. --Kreuzschnabel 08:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Brazilians butterfly collection, Zoology Museum, University of São Paulo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 14:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brazilians butterfly collection, Zoology Museum, University of São Paulo
✓ Done --The Photographer (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I re-support now. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Taricha torosa, Napa County, CA.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 12:22:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Connor Long - uploaded by Animalparty - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OJJ (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - The head is very sharp, but I wish more of the newt were in focus, or at least closer to being in focus. In terms of more of the subject being in focus, this photo of a Common Newt does better. Educational value for sure, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. The unsharp areas, as well as the harsh shadow below, are both distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I like the colors, and the bokeh gives me an impression that the creature is alive and crawling towards me. --Pine 07:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Newman University Church Interior 360x180, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 12:03:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Vineyards - Yaiza - 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 12:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vineyard walls near Uga, Lanzarote
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Interesting image per se and useful, and definitely a good idea, but with the exception of the segmentation, I don't find the experience of looking at it very rewarding beyond the first glance. I wonder if I would have found a photo that looked straight down the furrows more compelling as a composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. Potentially interesting subject not photographed in an interesting way. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too grey overall; I think it would have a better impact as a B&W image. --King of ♠ 23:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But then the small grapevine (a small splash of colour, which interrrupts the grey) would be nearly invisible. --Llez (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I’d love to give support for originality here. It just seems overprocessed (maybe can be helped by re-processing). The sky shows some reddish speckles to the right, and the yellow flower has some strange fully-saturated channel-blown-like green spots on it. --Kreuzschnabel 11:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done You're right, it was overprocessed to some degree. I made a completely new version from the raw file and I think, the result is much better (also the small gravevine is more detailed). --Llez (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, much better on the grapevine itself. Being such a small detail, the slight CA on the surrounding stones is somewhat irritating. Is there a way to get them a bit sharper and fix the red seams? I know it’s hard on this image but since the eyecatcher is such a small bit of it, every unsharpness or colour fringing would distract even stronger than usual. --Kreuzschnabel 04:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done --Llez (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. Thanks for your co-operation! --Kreuzschnabel 09:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Owl Rozarka Strix nebulosa, Prague.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 11:50:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small, at only 750K pixels 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

File:CheHigh.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 22:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The popularised version of Guerrillero Heroico.

File:Jaipur 03-2016 27 Hawa Mahal - Palace of the Winds.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 22:48:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hawa Mahal (Palace of the Winds) in Jaipur, India
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is another photo from Alexander's trip to Jaipur. It presents an interesting oblique view of the gorgeous Hawa Mahal, along with a bit of a slice of life below. I'm shocked to discover that we don't have any FP of the Hawa Mahal yet. Our one other Quality Image so far is not as good a photo as this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 01:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe category contains numerous images of a more interesting viewing angle and lighting, albeit not in that quality. This nomination offers high quality but the composition, viewpoint and lighting don’t look very special to me. Without wanting to personally insult the author I’d call this a high-quality tourist shot. Fine image, definitely QI and maybe VI, but not special enough to feature IMHO. Maybe the foreground is just too dominant. --Kreuzschnabel 08:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Jebulon (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm surprised by the level of opposition to this photo. Alexander, I hope I haven't unintentionally embarrassed you by nominating this photo. No offense to anyone for saying this, I hope, nor any disrespect for your views, but at the time I nominated this photo, it seemed obviously excellent to me; otherwise, I wouldn't have nominated it without checking with Alexander first for his thoughts on it. I don't see any reason to change my opinion, either, except inasmuch as I can't consider its excellence a consensus opinion. But let me say this: Canaletto did excellent tourist paintings of Venice. He was merely one of the greatest of many painters who painted typical picturesque scenes for tourists who wanted a picture to reminisce on their trip. Do you think that makes Canaletto's work not excellent? I wouldn't argue that this is on the level of Canaletto, but it's a digital photo, not an oil on canvas, so the medium is not subject to a one-to-one comparison. But to the extent the analogy holds, I think that an excellent tourist shot, if that's what this is, deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @Ikan Kekek: Thanks, no offence taken of course. I like the photo, but I also know that with a busy foreground like this, it will be difficult in FPC. --A.Savin 14:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment After all, that’s the educational value of FPC for nominators in my eyes. As it is, I consider all of my nominations featurable, however my latest ones have been severely opposed. While some see this as a personal insult, I rather see it as a chance to learn which images do wow others and which don’t. That’s why I vote about others’ images how I honestly feel about them (assuming others are willing to learn the same way as myself). Sometimes I have been quite surprised by the outcoming too. --Kreuzschnabel 13:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree. The whole FPC process has a very strong educational component with value added for all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Duomo di Città di Castello - Intern.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 20:35:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Duomo di Città di Castello - Intern.jpg

File:Верхнее Шавлинское озеро на фоне Северо-Чуйского хребта.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 10:38:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shavlinsky reserve: Kosh-Agach, Altai
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by N 3 14 15 92 65 - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - N 3 14 15 92 65 has been posting some very interesting landscape pictures in Quality Image Candidates. I think this is probably the best I've seen from this photographer so far. It's a composition that presents a variety of colors, textures and forms with a good dramatic sky - perhaps just a bit blown out where clouds are in front of the sun, but I really think that's not bad and the photo is worthy of a feature. I don't know whether some of you might find the rocks in the foreground unattractive, but to me, they're interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 14:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a very beautiful place but the image doesn't fit for an FP to me. The rocks at the bottom cover more than a third of the image and also marginilise the lake, which seems to appear as a minor detail in the whole composition. There are also technical issues: the colours seem pretty washed off; the sky is blown and the part where the clouds are in front of the sun is overexposed, while the cliffs to the immediate right are underexposed because of the lack of lighting, thus making a striking transition; some areas of the image are unsharp. I'd prefer an image with more vivid colours taken from a better angle.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Fair enough. I appreciate your detailed evaluation. We'll see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Considering this is a shot against the sun the tones are simply amazing, colors reflect what high(er) alpine scenery can look like (not everything is an oversaturated chocolate ad with purple cows). Maybe the composition could be improved a bit but I'm not sold on the idea. KennyOMG (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I suggest to change the format at least in 16:9 even a bit more in order to crop the too dominant appearing pieces of rock below. --Hockei (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Commuting by bicycle.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2016 at 18:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Commuting by bicycle
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Commuting by bicycle. Made in underpass, low light, increased ISO. Her face was moved outwards a bit, which i need (no Personal rights etc). Color is no option. My shot. --Mile (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, good; she's not flipping you off. I think it could be improved a bit more by cropping most of the left out. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: I tried central, but i moved left from ceneter of circle. I needed some more centimeters to see cycler, so went into thirds option - hence i even put some more material on left side. --Mile (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Lillehammer 2016 - Women hockey - Sweden vs Switzerland 31.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 20:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saskia Maurer of Switzerland during the Sweden - Switzerland game at the YOG2016
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a picture of Saskia Maurer, goalie of the Women's U18 Switzerland ice hockey team, taken during the first match of the swiss, against Sweden. The Swiss team has finished 3rd overall in the competition.-- Pleclown (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good QI but lacking wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Martin ~ Moheen (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

Saskia Maurer of Switzerland during the Sweden - Switzerland game at the YOG2016

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I like this photo, so I took the liberty of making some changes to what I think could be improved noise, colors and some small imperfections. --The Photographer (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is an improvement, but I still am not wowed. Definitely a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above ~ Moheen (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sea Monster.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 15:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Natrix natrix in Tallinn, Estonia
  • Well, first I though it might be the lens, but the "Bigma" used here is actually quite well-regarded not only for its sharpness. There are some halos along some of the sharper borders (e.g. tongue, chin), which suggests comparably strong processing. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that seems like a good example of destructive processing --The Photographer (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, I find all that mucilaginous scum or whatever to be really unattractive, and also, very little of this photo is in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose regretfully per other opposers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Blending, central composition doesnt work here. But shot is rare and in good mood...we might try to bring it out.--Mile (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I really want to support this, as for some reason I absolutely love all that … Slime? … as well as the "pose". But it looks over-sharpened in full size, and that's still noticeable at smaller sizes. I also somewhat agree with Mile concerning the composition, but that alone wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At first, this photo made me smile a bit, so I couldn't resist to examine it. In fact, the quality at full resolution is poor, but above all I see serious issues regarding the postprocess. Look: the end resolution is 5269x3500 px = 18.44 mpix. According to EXIF, the picture was taken with a Nikon D300S. The sensor of this camera has a maximum resolution of 4288x2848 px = 12.3 mpix... I cannot imagine this kind of photo to be any kind of stitched. Digital zooming / upscaled? Sorry, it is absolutely a no-go for me, even far from QI. Not to rescue. Strong oppose. Sorry! --A.Savin 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice -- Jiel (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rule is, there is no rule - i learnt here. I saw POTY 2015 final, last year portrait of a Oktoberfest woman, first vetoed, second try with Lauro Sirgado help got 7 votes. I think it ended somewhere in 15-20 best. Not to feel bad, so lets have a try. --Mile (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Flamencos andinos (Phoenicoparrus andinus), Laguna Hedionda, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 61.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 13:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Andean flamingos (Phoenicoparrus andinus) in the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Andean flamingos (Phoenicoparrus andinus) in the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia. All by me, Poco2 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although, why if the main subjects are the animals, is there too background? Ezarateesteban 14:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    Ezarate: Because I wasn't looking for a closeup of the flamingos but rather wanted to put them in context and couldn't avoid including that nice snowed mountain in the background in the composition. Poco2 16:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Ezarate: not a background: a very successfull composition.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A composition with so many horizontal lines is not well served by a vertical orientation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild/moderate Symbol support vote.svg Support - At full size, large parts of the background are more unsharp than necessary for compositional reasons, but it's really not bad: Everything is visible, and the photo looks good at full-page size. Full-page size is pretty small, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I should say, I don't disagree with Daniel's remark, despite my mild/moderate support vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral excellent quality and featurable scene - I can't really come to terms with the rather tight, vertically oriented composition though. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Daniel Case. Natural scene in almost 1:2 size doesnt work (in this case), upper half is defocused, so i would cut to bottom half into pano mode, with that grass on right corner away. But i have feeling you did some shots of flamingos also. --Mile (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Guys, I have uploaded tons of panoramas of this area, you seem to like them, but are portrait versions that bad? I find this composition balanced and pleasant to my eyes with enough elements to guide my eyes around. The other day I also got the feedback from Colin that for a picture with lots of horizontal lines a portrait version the best of all is. Poco2 12:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the reason I liked the portrait File:Mina de Chuquicamata, Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 121.JPG was that portrait emphasised the depth/height and the the crop at the sides left it feeling endless rather than the nomination image which fully encapsulated the whole quarry. It was more abstract, which also appeals to me. But that image might also have worked in square or landscape format provided the lines ran to the edge of the frame and appeared endless -- you just didn't have an identical image that was in those formats. I haven't looked at this one in detail yet, but I see the grass on the bottom right as distracting, and the asymmetrical crop of the mountain is unusual but possibly interesting. If I crop the grass out, it's much more pleasing. I'll have a look again tonight. -- Colin (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ✓ New version uploaded with an improved crop (got rid of the bush in the right bottom corner) Poco2 18:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its a strange picture. Not perfect (e.g. the distant flamingos are cropped arbitrarily on the right) but I like that it has some artistic arrangement, rather than a straightforward landscape or animal photo. -- Colin (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wowable atmosphere. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 03:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition is fantastic. I like the idea of capturing variety of themes in one image using horizontal gradation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Hong Kong Railway Route Map ring.pdfEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 09:20:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Concentric MTR diagram
I myself have created much more complex images that this and have had no problems with mediawiki rendering. If the SVG is validated, I see no inconvenience and I think you should try to import this in Inkscape and get a clean SVG. --The Photographer (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your nomination. I'm guessing you want us to judge the shapes of the map as art? If so, I'm sorry, but I don't find it compelling enough to feature. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can’t see anything special in that either. Most route maps of public transport are simplified and schematised in a similar way. – (I once came across a map of hiking routes in the Lake District designed like the London Underground map. Nice idea!) --Kreuzschnabel 10:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hight EV, however, try make it SVG. PDF is for documents --The Photographer (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Per the Photographer. I will not consider on the merits unless it is nominated in a more customary image format. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Verde78 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. I'm not seeing anything visually striking about this. INeverCry 03:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Anna Palm - A game of L'hombre in Brøndum's Hotel - Google Art Project.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 18:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A game of L'hombre in Brøndum's Hotel by Swedish artist Anna Palm de Rosa


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Bea Kyle Standing Fire Engine and Pickle 1924, edited.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 13:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
A 1924 photo. Edited from File:Bea Kyle Standing Fire Engine and Pickle 1924.jpg -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Victoria amazonica.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 06:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Flower from the Giant Amazon Water Lilly (Victoria amazonica) at the Adelaide Botanic Garden."

Alt 1Edit

Victoria amazonica ks01.jpg
Original photo by Bilby, edited by Kreuzschnabel

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also pinging Ikan Kekek. --Pine 14:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm always amazed when I see one of these. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the flower, but the green thing/shape in the corner does nothing for the composition. INeverCry 01:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That’s a leaf of the same plant. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for composition as above. Certainly nice but not that special to be featured IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per other --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination given the support/oppose ratio and only one day remaining on the clock. --Pine 06:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, X neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


Contestations en coursEdit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Grandma's room.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2016 at 00:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Grandma's room

File:Warszawa - synagoga z Gwoźdźca 2.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 21:32:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Museum of the History of Polish Jews in Warsaw. Reconstruction of the synagogue in Gwoździec (part)

File:Kamchatka Brown Bear near Dvuhyurtochnoe on 2015-07-23.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 12:00:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kamchatka Brown Bear
I did not noticed he removed the categories since I had put the image in my favorites, and I'm sorry too to learn the sad news Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Very strange. Anyway, I'll say that I like the bear but don't like the bokeh, so I probably wouldn't be a "Support" vote, but I'd like for Rftblr to explain why he removed the categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Oh my God, I'm so sorry! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    • We could remove the image description page template "Please do not upload an updated image here without consultation with the author" ??. Anyway he will be inmortal with his photographs here --The Photographer (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the bokeh could be better but the main subject is featureable imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 18:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bear is good. Back not so.--Mile (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While it’s technically good and certainly QI, I don’t see anything really special in this. The busy bokeh doesn’t help. --Kreuzschnabel 21:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent -- Jiel (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 23:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Нижня польська брама.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 10:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A Ukrainian castle. Uploaded as part of WLM 2015.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Q-lieb-in - uploaded by Q-lieb-in - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - That's a very compelling composition, but at full size, it becomes clear that parts of the picture are unsharp and, I think most disturbingly, the left side of the tower is blown and posterized. Can anything be done to ameliorate these problems, or at least those with the tower? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It could have helped to stop down a bit (f/4.5 ...) - but given the difficult composition and the inevitable weaknesses of uwa-lenses, I'll give my support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Agrell, Johan.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 10:37:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of Johan Agrell

File:Weißrückengeier Gyps africanus HP L2043.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2016 at 06:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vultures in their habitat
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC) P.S: I nominate this image, because of this point Face-wink.svg
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - My point: This isn't a super-zoomed photo of a single bird, so it can't compete in that respect with pictures in which we can see every feather, but it shows the birds in their habitat, and I like the shapes of the tree branches as well as those of the vultures and consider this a very good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great idea, but the cropped branches bother me. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
    If I had don't cropped the branches, so you only see only more uninteresting blu empty sky ... ?!? The valture are the main object. OK, this is only my opinion. Thanks for your voting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Launch of Falcon 9 carrying ORBCOMM OG2-M1 (16601442698).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 20:25:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket launched the ORBCOMM OG2 Mission 1 on July 14, 2014.

File:Four Falcon 9 first stages under construction.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 20:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Four Falcon 9 first stages under construction at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, CA.

File:2016.05.21.-06-Wildseemoor-Gernsbach-Kaltenbronn--Wildsee.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 20:11:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wildsee. Taken in Wildseemoor in Kaltenbronn (Gernsbach), Baden-Württemberg, Germany.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hockei (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I like landscapes, but this composition, though beyond the run of the mill because of the branches in the upper foreground and shrubs in the lower foreground, is not compelling enough for me to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. QI for sure, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza (Rome) , Dome.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 19:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza (Rome) , Dome
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - A picture of a place with so little color would have to be more nearly perfect for me to want to feature it. I don't like the blown-out hazy whitish light coming from the window. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crops on the lower windows. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for the time being. The whitish light doesn't really bother me - in fact I do like the serene, almost colorless mood, but the chosen crop is a bit difficult... any chance you can give us more space on both the left and the right side? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Bemoste, geteisterde boomstronken aan voetpad naar vogelkijkhut De Schollevaar. Locatie, Oostvaardersplassen 07.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 16:12:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Damaged trees.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mossy, ravaged stumps on footpath to the bird hide Schollevaar. Location, Oostvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI for sure, but I don't see enough out of the ordinary for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice QI, but to low wow for FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I think this composition is beautiful, I love the shapes of wood in the middle, and in my opinion, this would be a good photo to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Koenigssee - St. Bartholomew's Church 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 14:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St. Bartholomew's Church (St. Bartholomä), Königssee, and the East Face of Mount Watzmann, Bavaria - part of Berchtesgaden National Park

File:Jaipur 03-2016 39 Jal Mahal - Water Palace.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 14:26:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jaipur/India: The Water Palace at evening

File:Stefano Tofanelli Family.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2016 at 07:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stefano Tofanelli Family
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination All by LivioAndronico (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I don't find this painting very interesting artistically, if this is a good reproduction, so I think I'll abstain from voting on whether a feature is justified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unless LivioAndronico can explain how this image passes the guidelines for Artworks. The painter, Stefano Tofanelli, does not qualify as a "major artist" (he gets two short paragraphs on Wikipedia). Clearly we aren't going to feature all paintings on Commons, otherwise there seems no point in having FP for paintings. This is a small (9MP) photo that is a bit noisy too. The biggest problem is that compared to Getty Images this image has had the saturation maxed out. Livio, this image has zero educational value if the colours are not faithful. -- 10:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Colin comment who forget sign --The Photographer (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
BTW, FP size requeriment is 2 MP, about color saturation and WB is another problem --The Photographer (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that, and if you can find a 2MP painting that has passed PF in the last several years, I'd be amazed. That it is 9MP isn't a fail, but it isn't anything in it's merit either. -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Currently there are established requirements, I agree that the picture is taken at the highest possible resolution of the camera, however, you can not demand a higher size for a camera that can not do that, because you're forced to buy new cameras and that's money. Size is important, however, is not everything. I can show you a big quantity 6 MB painting already FP and yes you could use another personal requeriment, however, IMHO epithets arguments should not exceed the FP requeriments pre-established. I respect your opinion, however, it is your opinion and when you use "we" in your arguments is a clear lack of consideration for those who not think the same way. --The Photographer (talk) 13:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
You have misunderstood my point about the size. As I said in my reply above, the 9MP comment isn't a reason for my oppose, but isn't something to get excited about either -- it isn't going to be the thing that helps an otherwise average image become stellar. You know that judging is a balance of good and bad aspects, and the resolution here is "meh". You are well aware that we have many many very high resolution images of paintings, taken professionally, with hopefully professional standards of colour/brightness accuracy. Our amateur efforts have to compete with that, because that's what "finest" means. The only "we" in my comment is about this forum not featuring all paintings on Commons, so "we" isn't absolutely correct and "I" would be inappropriate. Of course it is only my opinion, and I would appreciate you striking out the nasty comment about "clear lack of consideration for those who not think the same way". The 2MP is not a "requirement" in the sense that once passed then no complaints can be made about resolution, and I'm surprised that someone here for as long as you choose to argue about that because you know full well it doesn't and never has worked that way. It's a lower limit to give nominators a clear idea of what is likely to generate an FPX. That's all. I don't "demand a higher size". Please don't put words in my mouth. If this image had accurate colours, was noise-free, was sharp and the artwork passed our criteria for FP (which this doesn't) then I wouldn't have opposed. Anyway, the camera used is 6000x4000 and this image is 3400x2665 so this is only 60% size and not even sharp. -- Colin (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
What is your minimum image size recomendation/requeriment. ? --The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no rule "If an image is X MP then that is acceptable for FP" and nor should there be. So I don't have a minimum. And please, I have now for the third time had to state that the 9MP is not a reason for my oppose. Can we take this somewhere else, as it is irrelevant to this image. -- Colin (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Compared to the rendering on Getty Images, this reproduction shows overdone colours and a completely different tone. The other version strikes me much more realistic, but since I don’t have access to the original painting, maybe the nominator could say something about colours? --Kreuzschnabel 14:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Only if the nominator show his RAW file we could imagine the "original colors". --The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
A raw file is not calibrated neutral either. It contains no information about the colour temperature of the lighting -- this must either be guessed by the software/camera or set by the user using their own judgement. It also contains no information about the correct brightness and contrast, so the image may be under-exposed for example. The only way to be sure is to use ColorChecker and ideally to have control over the lighting, which is what professionals do. Failing that, we can use other copies of the image as a reference. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I generally use a rudimentary ColorChecker Passport created by myself, however, it will be a photographer interpretation or camera representation based on internal algorithm of revelation, printer settings, camera LCD configuration, PC monitor setting and quality....A person who lived his entire life in the Caribbean may have less sensitivity to light than another person from certain Scandinavian countries. Some populations of completely separate cultures, and unrelated, living in high relief, such as Nepal and Bolivia, using live similar colors in their daily attire. --The Photographer (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colors seem off to me ... honestly, I never thought I'd be faulting a painting for CA (look at the main subject's nose) and while I was going to wait to see if this was the way it was, I couldn't find too many other versions online to compare. I was going to go with a neutral, but per the concerns of Colin and Kreuzschnabel above I don't think I need to defer. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination it's only a pic....--LivioAndronico (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Сергей Трофимович Алексеев.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2016 at 15:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Portrait
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Зяблицева Станислава Владимировна - uploaded by Krassotkin - nominated by Krassotkin --sasha (krassotkin) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --sasha (krassotkin) 15:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture is over saturated in my eyes KKnoefler247 (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ~ Moheen (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Besides the fact that the depicted person is not particularly notable, I fail to see reason why this photo should be obviously ineligible for FP. Therefore it would be helpful from KKnoefler247 and Moheen Reeyad to explain their oppose. It is good tone on COM:FPC to write why oppose, except for really obvious cases. --A.Savin 20:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Done, both have commented. --A.Savin 16:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I could not find anything valuable or special. ‍‍‍‍ ~ Moheen (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose A nice job with the man, but the shadow at left is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Cappadocia Chimneys - DWiW.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2016 at 06:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Chimneys rock formation, nearby Gorëme, in Cappadocia, central Turkey"
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Turkey
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Benh, modified by Der Wolf im Wald - uploaded by Der Wolf im Wald - nominated by Pine -- Pine 06:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pine 06:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think there is a technical problem at the left corner in the sky. ‍‍‍If the shade of color is not a problem I will support. ~ Moheen (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An impressive job creating this, but the blown posterized sky noted above ruins it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Daniel where is the sky blown? It is pale in the corner, but sky does that. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
      • OK, I amend that. It is pale, yes, but it is also posterized to the point that whether it is blown or not is a distinction without a difference AFAIC. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice -- Jiel (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I find this impressive, in spite of the issues with the sky noted above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Monasterio de Santa María de Huerta, Santa María de Huerta Soria, España, 2015-12-28, DD 18-20 HDR.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 20:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Well, this is an organ of more than five centuries, clearly is in the process of deterioration and IMHO what you call asymmetry is a visual effect created by the railing on the left side. --The Photographer (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the asymmetry noted by Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree - composition is out. --Mile (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Difficult shot but asymmetric. KKnoefler247 (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)*
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Kreuz. ~ Moheen (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment can sonebody explain me what is rhe opposing reason? Is it the elements on the left that are no existing on the rifht? I cannot help there then Poco2 20:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As Poco a Poco says, we can't put anything on the right side Ezarateesteban 00:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThat’s why I suggested to take a pic from a more angular view. While we cannot build another railing to symmetrize the scenery, we still can choose our point of view for a balanced composition. --Kreuzschnabel 07:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The composition looks OK to me. You folks so often object to centered compositions that are symmetrical. I really don't understand what your objection to this composition is. And angled composition sounds to me like the photo by A.Savin that got so much opposition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure if I am included in "you folks" but I’ll still try to answer that. As for me, there is no general bias for or against symmetrical compositions. It depends on what’s in the pic. A heavy, immobile structure as this is well served by a symmetric composition, while a fast moving object or creature isn’t. Imagine the camera moved 1 or 2 metres to the right here. Would make the composition perfect in my eyes, but might ruin it entirely in yours. Matter of taste, and personal reception of images. – Which Savin shot do you refer to? The "Palace of Winds"? I opposed that for busy foreground, not for angled view. Generally, please trust in anyone here to consider their votings as carefully as you do yours. Sometimes, we just cannot explain why the one image works while the other doesn’t. So, "does not wow me" is a plausible reason in here to oppose while it’s hard to put in words why. --Kreuzschnabel 07:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm reacting to the specific words used. "No wow" is not subject to question, no. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:2013 Cogden Bridge.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 11:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cogden Bridge, North Yorkshire
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom.E2.80.8E
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Kreuzschnabel 11:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info One of my 2013 images of the Yorkshire Dales. A small lane crossing the valley of Cogden Beck in a sharp U-curve over the old bridge. The sunlit red bracken in late october forms an eye-catching contrast to the blue sky. This bridge is quite frequently shown in the "All Creatures Great and Small" TV series :-)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kreuzschnabel 11:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cool compo and nice colors, for info a bit of CAs at far right. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, I know. Unfortunately, the M.Zuiko 2.0/12 produces considerable CAs towards the edges. I tried to remove as much as I could. --Kreuzschnabel 03:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful scenery. ~ Moheen (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colors (rusty plants play off blue sky in a way this combination should but usually doesn't) Love the curvy road and the landscape. Daniel Case (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice composition and colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support These colours! --Code (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose beautiful colors and composition, but when viewed at 100% this is is too grainy. --Pine 07:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I think I'm seeing what Pine sees, and that's why I don't totally love this, but it's still pretty good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It seems a little bit oversharpened, but still ok. -- -donald- (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Mary Martin in The Sound of Music by Toni Frissell.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 00:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mary Martin in The Sound of Music by Toni Frissell
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People - I honestly don't know where to categorize this. Suggestions?
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Toni Frissell - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 01:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Good question, which one. I've been thinking about it before. Black and white for sure, its good we have that category, also that is given as type of photo, while other shots refer to what is inside of photo. So i suggest puting all black and white shots also into "about category", my cycle would be transport-objects or People, this one would be People probably also... an issue to be solved. --Mile (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - A great moment. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As usual, I suggest a crop to avoid the centered composition. As for the image as such, it surely is a great moment well captured but also very, very unsharp and noisy. I’m not sure the historical value makes up for that. So, a regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from my side. --Kreuzschnabel 11:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Kreuzschnabel: With things like en:Template:CSS image crop, I think it's generally better to have the more-or-less uncropped be the one promoted, unless there's major issues, e.g. the Billy Strayhorn pic a while back where the closeness of the camera made the knees look very large and odd if uncropped. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Code (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. ~ Moheen (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Analogic photogram don't work with the common standard "noise" (electronic noise) definition. --The Photographer (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That doesn’t make "analog" noise more tolerable than "digital" noise. We usually don’t excuse for drawbacks just because they’re impossible to handle in postprocessing. And there have been low-noise analog photographs too --Kreuzschnabel 03:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
      • So, basically, I find a free-licensed photograph of a highly notable musical, and it's going to get voted down over film grain? The kids are running , so it's high-speed film. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Oh, please. Oppose in FPC doesn’t mean the picture is bad, or unusable, lacks value or anything in that direction. It just means that I don’t think it’s one of the finest images there are on Commons. And I clearly stated why. --Kreuzschnabel 07:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 10:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent quality in this year. --Ralf Roleček 23:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, there were methods of obtaining finer grain back in the days – we can see that in the portraits that are nominated here quite regularly. But those are studio shots where you could choose slow films and large formats. For stuff like this, you need a fast shutter speed, so I'd guess something like Tri-X was used (400 ASA was considered fast at that time). A mobile camera probably doesn't hurt either, so probably 135 film (the aspect ratio seems to support this). Now keep in mind that the default print size for 135 film was 4×6 (10×15 cm or A6), which is smaller than the default preview size of our file description pages. This one still looks quite good at, say, 1280px on the long side. Based on my (admittedly very limited) personal experience with B&W 35mm film photography, I'm leaning towards Symbol support vote.svg supporting this as one of our finest 1950s/1960s action shots. --El Grafo (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Excellent analisis, thanks --The Photographer (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Daniel Craig McCallum by The Brady National Photographic Art Gallery.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2016 at 00:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Daniel Craig McCallum

File:Búho chico (Asio otus), Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, España, 2015-12-08, DD 05.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 21:39:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Close-up of a captive exemplar of Long-eared owl (Asio otus), Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Close-up of a captive exemplar of Long-eared owl (Asio otus), Arcos de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain. All by Poco2 21:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 21:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm sorry, but so little of this bird, including its head, is in focus at full size that I think this is well below the usual current standard of FP bird pictures. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan. Insufficient DoF. --Kreuzschnabel 09:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan and Kreuzschnabel. I don't mind the pose and the lack of en environment—there's nothing wrong with photographing an owl as if it were sitting for its high-school yearbook. But it has to be done as well as we'd expect such a photo to be, and if my photo ran in the yearbook with my tie all blurry like this, I'd be upset. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Withdrawing before I get devorated here ;) Poco2 20:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

File:ONERA MEUDON soufflerie S1b.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 15:40:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

S1 old wind tunnel of ONERA, Meudon (near Paris), France
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Industry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ibex73 - uploaded by ibex73 - nominated by User:ibex73 -- Ibex73 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ibex73 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Strange image. If possible, it would really up the educational value if a short explanation of what we're looking at were provided. This is a structure that is used as a wind tunnel, I gather? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),The need to understand the aerodynamic phenomena, in as close as possible to reality, driven to achieve a large wind tunnel at atmospheric pressure, in Meudon. The S1 wind tunnel for testing of aircraft in real size was built from 1932 to 1934. Through the large dimensions of the test section, S1 can experiment had real 12 m wingspan, with the engine running and the driver on board. Until the 1970s, it is mainly aircraft (the Caravelle and the Concorde) but also cars (the 4 CV and the Beetle), trains, architectural elements, who have gone through the experimental chamber to be developed or improved (maximum speed 180 km / h). This 1933 building absorbs 7,000 m3 of reinforced concrete, 700 tons of iron, 1000 m3 of wood, and requires the establishment of 566 implementation plans (see old pictures on http://www.anciensonera.fr/?q=node/17). Ibex73 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Thank you. Please add that to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Albertus teolog (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unusual, and definitely a QI, but not enough wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for poor lighting. If only all of the object was sunlit. --Kreuzschnabel 09:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I like the atmospheric effect of the fog and colors, although I think it would be preferable to retake this same shot with a camera that can produce better resolution and fine detail. --Pine 07:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is now 6 years I expect extreme weather conditions to improve this picture ... Indeed, not only must it snows a lot in Paris, which is quite exceptional, but it is necessary that the sky is perfectly clear the next morning for a light fog and blue snow ... I must also be there at the right time! Ibex73 (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Err … yes. Surprised? Photography is all about light, and light is (outside the studio) all about choosing the perfect moment, time-of-day, time-of-year … and outdoor photography is much about being lucky with the weather, too. --Kreuzschnabel 08:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Brazilians butterfly collection, Zoology Museum, University of São Paulo.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 14:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brazilians butterfly collection, Zoology Museum, University of São Paulo
✓ Done --The Photographer (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I re-support now. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Taricha torosa, Napa County, CA.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 12:22:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Connor Long - uploaded by Animalparty - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OJJ (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - The head is very sharp, but I wish more of the newt were in focus, or at least closer to being in focus. In terms of more of the subject being in focus, this photo of a Common Newt does better. Educational value for sure, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. The unsharp areas, as well as the harsh shadow below, are both distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I like the colors, and the bokeh gives me an impression that the creature is alive and crawling towards me. --Pine 07:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Newman University Church Interior 360x180, Dublin, Ireland - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 12:03:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Vineyards - Yaiza - 03.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 12:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vineyard walls near Uga, Lanzarote
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Interesting image per se and useful, and definitely a good idea, but with the exception of the segmentation, I don't find the experience of looking at it very rewarding beyond the first glance. I wonder if I would have found a photo that looked straight down the furrows more compelling as a composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. Potentially interesting subject not photographed in an interesting way. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too grey overall; I think it would have a better impact as a B&W image. --King of ♠ 23:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But then the small grapevine (a small splash of colour, which interrrupts the grey) would be nearly invisible. --Llez (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I’d love to give support for originality here. It just seems overprocessed (maybe can be helped by re-processing). The sky shows some reddish speckles to the right, and the yellow flower has some strange fully-saturated channel-blown-like green spots on it. --Kreuzschnabel 11:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done You're right, it was overprocessed to some degree. I made a completely new version from the raw file and I think, the result is much better (also the small gravevine is more detailed). --Llez (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, much better on the grapevine itself. Being such a small detail, the slight CA on the surrounding stones is somewhat irritating. Is there a way to get them a bit sharper and fix the red seams? I know it’s hard on this image but since the eyecatcher is such a small bit of it, every unsharpness or colour fringing would distract even stronger than usual. --Kreuzschnabel 04:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
        • ✓ Done --Llez (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. Thanks for your co-operation! --Kreuzschnabel 09:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Owl Rozarka Strix nebulosa, Prague.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2016 at 11:50:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small, at only 750K pixels 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.

Daniel Case (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

File:CheHigh.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 22:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The popularised version of Guerrillero Heroico.

File:Jaipur 03-2016 27 Hawa Mahal - Palace of the Winds.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 22:48:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hawa Mahal (Palace of the Winds) in Jaipur, India
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is another photo from Alexander's trip to Jaipur. It presents an interesting oblique view of the gorgeous Hawa Mahal, along with a bit of a slice of life below. I'm shocked to discover that we don't have any FP of the Hawa Mahal yet. Our one other Quality Image so far is not as good a photo as this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 01:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe category contains numerous images of a more interesting viewing angle and lighting, albeit not in that quality. This nomination offers high quality but the composition, viewpoint and lighting don’t look very special to me. Without wanting to personally insult the author I’d call this a high-quality tourist shot. Fine image, definitely QI and maybe VI, but not special enough to feature IMHO. Maybe the foreground is just too dominant. --Kreuzschnabel 08:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. --Jebulon (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm surprised by the level of opposition to this photo. Alexander, I hope I haven't unintentionally embarrassed you by nominating this photo. No offense to anyone for saying this, I hope, nor any disrespect for your views, but at the time I nominated this photo, it seemed obviously excellent to me; otherwise, I wouldn't have nominated it without checking with Alexander first for his thoughts on it. I don't see any reason to change my opinion, either, except inasmuch as I can't consider its excellence a consensus opinion. But let me say this: Canaletto did excellent tourist paintings of Venice. He was merely one of the greatest of many painters who painted typical picturesque scenes for tourists who wanted a picture to reminisce on their trip. Do you think that makes Canaletto's work not excellent? I wouldn't argue that this is on the level of Canaletto, but it's a digital photo, not an oil on canvas, so the medium is not subject to a one-to-one comparison. But to the extent the analogy holds, I think that an excellent tourist shot, if that's what this is, deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @Ikan Kekek: Thanks, no offence taken of course. I like the photo, but I also know that with a busy foreground like this, it will be difficult in FPC. --A.Savin 14:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment After all, that’s the educational value of FPC for nominators in my eyes. As it is, I consider all of my nominations featurable, however my latest ones have been severely opposed. While some see this as a personal insult, I rather see it as a chance to learn which images do wow others and which don’t. That’s why I vote about others’ images how I honestly feel about them (assuming others are willing to learn the same way as myself). Sometimes I have been quite surprised by the outcoming too. --Kreuzschnabel 13:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree. The whole FPC process has a very strong educational component with value added for all.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Duomo di Città di Castello - Intern.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 20:35:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Duomo di Città di Castello - Intern.jpg

File:Верхнее Шавлинское озеро на фоне Северо-Чуйского хребта.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2016 at 10:38:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shavlinsky reserve: Kosh-Agach, Altai
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by N 3 14 15 92 65 - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - N 3 14 15 92 65 has been posting some very interesting landscape pictures in Quality Image Candidates. I think this is probably the best I've seen from this photographer so far. It's a composition that presents a variety of colors, textures and forms with a good dramatic sky - perhaps just a bit blown out where clouds are in front of the sun, but I really think that's not bad and the photo is worthy of a feature. I don't know whether some of you might find the rocks in the foreground unattractive, but to me, they're interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 14:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a very beautiful place but the image doesn't fit for an FP to me. The rocks at the bottom cover more than a third of the image and also marginilise the lake, which seems to appear as a minor detail in the whole composition. There are also technical issues: the colours seem pretty washed off; the sky is blown and the part where the clouds are in front of the sun is overexposed, while the cliffs to the immediate right are underexposed because of the lack of lighting, thus making a striking transition; some areas of the image are unsharp. I'd prefer an image with more vivid colours taken from a better angle.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Fair enough. I appreciate your detailed evaluation. We'll see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Considering this is a shot against the sun the tones are simply amazing, colors reflect what high(er) alpine scenery can look like (not everything is an oversaturated chocolate ad with purple cows). Maybe the composition could be improved a bit but I'm not sold on the idea. KennyOMG (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I suggest to change the format at least in 16:9 even a bit more in order to crop the too dominant appearing pieces of rock below. --Hockei (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Commuting by bicycle.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2016 at 18:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Commuting by bicycle
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Commuting by bicycle. Made in underpass, low light, increased ISO. Her face was moved outwards a bit, which i need (no Personal rights etc). Color is no option. My shot. --Mile (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, good; she's not flipping you off. I think it could be improved a bit more by cropping most of the left out. Daniel Case (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case: I tried central, but i moved left from ceneter of circle. I needed some more centimeters to see cycler, so went into thirds option - hence i even put some more material on left side. --Mile (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Lillehammer 2016 - Women hockey - Sweden vs Switzerland 31.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 20:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saskia Maurer of Switzerland during the Sweden - Switzerland game at the YOG2016
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a picture of Saskia Maurer, goalie of the Women's U18 Switzerland ice hockey team, taken during the first match of the swiss, against Sweden. The Swiss team has finished 3rd overall in the competition.-- Pleclown (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good QI but lacking wow --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Martin ~ Moheen (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

Saskia Maurer of Switzerland during the Sweden - Switzerland game at the YOG2016

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I like this photo, so I took the liberty of making some changes to what I think could be improved noise, colors and some small imperfections. --The Photographer (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is an improvement, but I still am not wowed. Definitely a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above ~ Moheen (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Sea Monster.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 15:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Natrix natrix in Tallinn, Estonia
  • Well, first I though it might be the lens, but the "Bigma" used here is actually quite well-regarded not only for its sharpness. There are some halos along some of the sharper borders (e.g. tongue, chin), which suggests comparably strong processing. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that seems like a good example of destructive processing --The Photographer (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose per The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, I find all that mucilaginous scum or whatever to be really unattractive, and also, very little of this photo is in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose regretfully per other opposers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Blending, central composition doesnt work here. But shot is rare and in good mood...we might try to bring it out.--Mile (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I really want to support this, as for some reason I absolutely love all that … Slime? … as well as the "pose". But it looks over-sharpened in full size, and that's still noticeable at smaller sizes. I also somewhat agree with Mile concerning the composition, but that alone wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me. --El Grafo (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At first, this photo made me smile a bit, so I couldn't resist to examine it. In fact, the quality at full resolution is poor, but above all I see serious issues regarding the postprocess. Look: the end resolution is 5269x3500 px = 18.44 mpix. According to EXIF, the picture was taken with a Nikon D300S. The sensor of this camera has a maximum resolution of 4288x2848 px = 12.3 mpix... I cannot imagine this kind of photo to be any kind of stitched. Digital zooming / upscaled? Sorry, it is absolutely a no-go for me, even far from QI. Not to rescue. Strong oppose. Sorry! --A.Savin 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice -- Jiel (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rule is, there is no rule - i learnt here. I saw POTY 2015 final, last year portrait of a Oktoberfest woman, first vetoed, second try with Lauro Sirgado help got 7 votes. I think it ended somewhere in 15-20 best. Not to feel bad, so lets have a try. --Mile (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Flamencos andinos (Phoenicoparrus andinus), Laguna Hedionda, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 61.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 13:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Andean flamingos (Phoenicoparrus andinus) in the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Andean flamingos (Phoenicoparrus andinus) in the Laguna Hedionda, Nor Lípez Province southwestern Bolivia. All by me, Poco2 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although, why if the main subjects are the animals, is there too background? Ezarateesteban 14:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    Ezarate: Because I wasn't looking for a closeup of the flamingos but rather wanted to put them in context and couldn't avoid including that nice snowed mountain in the background in the composition. Poco2 16:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Ezarate: not a background: a very successfull composition.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A composition with so many horizontal lines is not well served by a vertical orientation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild/moderate Symbol support vote.svg Support - At full size, large parts of the background are more unsharp than necessary for compositional reasons, but it's really not bad: Everything is visible, and the photo looks good at full-page size. Full-page size is pretty small, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I should say, I don't disagree with Daniel's remark, despite my mild/moderate support vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral excellent quality and featurable scene - I can't really come to terms with the rather tight, vertically oriented composition though. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Daniel Case. Natural scene in almost 1:2 size doesnt work (in this case), upper half is defocused, so i would cut to bottom half into pano mode, with that grass on right corner away. But i have feeling you did some shots of flamingos also. --Mile (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Guys, I have uploaded tons of panoramas of this area, you seem to like them, but are portrait versions that bad? I find this composition balanced and pleasant to my eyes with enough elements to guide my eyes around. The other day I also got the feedback from Colin that for a picture with lots of horizontal lines a portrait version the best of all is. Poco2 12:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the reason I liked the portrait File:Mina de Chuquicamata, Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 121.JPG was that portrait emphasised the depth/height and the the crop at the sides left it feeling endless rather than the nomination image which fully encapsulated the whole quarry. It was more abstract, which also appeals to me. But that image might also have worked in square or landscape format provided the lines ran to the edge of the frame and appeared endless -- you just didn't have an identical image that was in those formats. I haven't looked at this one in detail yet, but I see the grass on the bottom right as distracting, and the asymmetrical crop of the mountain is unusual but possibly interesting. If I crop the grass out, it's much more pleasing. I'll have a look again tonight. -- Colin (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ✓ New version uploaded with an improved crop (got rid of the bush in the right bottom corner) Poco2 18:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its a strange picture. Not perfect (e.g. the distant flamingos are cropped arbitrarily on the right) but I like that it has some artistic arrangement, rather than a straightforward landscape or animal photo. -- Colin (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wowable atmosphere. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 03:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition is fantastic. I like the idea of capturing variety of themes in one image using horizontal gradation.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Hong Kong Railway Route Map ring.pdfEdit

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2016 at 09:20:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Concentric MTR diagram
I myself have created much more complex images that this and have had no problems with mediawiki rendering. If the SVG is validated, I see no inconvenience and I think you should try to import this in Inkscape and get a clean SVG. --The Photographer (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your nomination. I'm guessing you want us to judge the shapes of the map as art? If so, I'm sorry, but I don't find it compelling enough to feature. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can’t see anything special in that either. Most route maps of public transport are simplified and schematised in a similar way. – (I once came across a map of hiking routes in the Lake District designed like the London Underground map. Nice idea!) --Kreuzschnabel 10:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hight EV, however, try make it SVG. PDF is for documents --The Photographer (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Per the Photographer. I will not consider on the merits unless it is nominated in a more customary image format. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Verde78 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. I'm not seeing anything visually striking about this. INeverCry 03:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Anna Palm - A game of L'hombre in Brøndum's Hotel - Google Art Project.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 18:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A game of L'hombre in Brøndum's Hotel by Swedish artist Anna Palm de Rosa


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Bea Kyle Standing Fire Engine and Pickle 1924, edited.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2016 at 13:12:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
A 1924 photo. Edited from File:Bea Kyle Standing Fire Engine and Pickle 1924.jpg -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Victoria amazonica.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 29 May 2016 at 06:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Flower from the Giant Amazon Water Lilly (Victoria amazonica) at the Adelaide Botanic Garden."

Alt 1Edit

Victoria amazonica ks01.jpg
Original photo by Bilby, edited by Kreuzschnabel

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also pinging Ikan Kekek. --Pine 14:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm always amazed when I see one of these. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the flower, but the green thing/shape in the corner does nothing for the composition. INeverCry 01:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That’s a leaf of the same plant. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for composition as above. Certainly nice but not that special to be featured IMHO. --Kreuzschnabel 05:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this version. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per other --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination given the support/oppose ratio and only one day remaining on the clock. --Pine 06:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, X neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


Planning (9e jour après proposition)Edit

Mon 23 May → Wed 1 Jun
Tue 24 May → Thu 2 Jun
Wed 25 May → Fri 3 Jun
Thu 26 May → Sat 4 Jun
Fri 27 May → Sun 5 Jun
Sat 28 May → Mon 6 Jun
Sun 29 May → Tue 7 Jun
Mon 30 May → Wed 8 Jun
Tue 31 May → Thu 9 Jun
Wed 1 Jun → Fri 10 Jun