Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

Alemannisch | asturianu | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | молдовеняскэ | norsk bokmål | português | polski | română | русский | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Shortcut
COM:FPC
Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures.

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and current month.

For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Formal things[edit]

Nominating[edit]

Guidelines for nominators[edit]

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:

  • Licensing - Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • ResolutionImages (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level.
Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Valueour main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.

Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.

Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution. For instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.

Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

Photographs

On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of Thirds" is a good guideline for composition and is an inheritance from the painting school. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is often less interesting than placing the subject in one of the "interest points", the 4 intersection between these horizontal and vertical lines intersect. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. The upper or lower horizontal line is often a good choice. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

Video and audio

Set nominations

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Adding a new nomination[edit]

If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following.

Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.

All single files:

For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2



Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}

Recommended: Please add a category from the list at COM:FP.

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

Voting[edit]

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.

You may use following templates:

  • {{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram voting question.svg Question),
  • {{Request}} (Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request).

You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator.

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).

Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture
{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images. For these nominations, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP.
{{Delistandreplace}} Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box:


In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:

  • Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
  • A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
  • Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose.

Featured picture candidate policy[edit]

General rules[edit]

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.)
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rules[edit]

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that are familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be polite[edit]

Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care.

Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken.

See also[edit]

Table of contents[edit]

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).

Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Contents

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Viborg_Katedralskole_Symmetrical.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 06:43:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Morning panorama of the Eastern facade of Viborg Katedralskole, Viborg, Denmark

File:Standardgraph 1310 radius stencil.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 21:17:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Radius stencil for use in technical drafting.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This radius stencil is one of very few that illustrate the micronorm for technical pens, this detail crop shows how the stencil paths are optimized for different nib sizes (=line widths). All by Lucasbosch -- LB 21:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's also already FP on persian Wikipedia-- LB 21:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More objects! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question @Lucasbosch: You want me to make a Set for you? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @ArionEstar: That would be great. Would you then also include this one and remove this nomination? Do whatever makes the best sense,. So there are four non-FP stencils left, including this one, see my User page. --LB 06:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Buteogallus meridionalis Pantanal.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 20:33:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Mausoleum of Galla Placidia ceiling mosaics.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 20:06:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Garden of Eden" mosaic in mausoleum of Galla Placidia. UNESCO World heritage site. Ravenna, Italy. 5th century A.D.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A mosiac from 5th century A.D called "Garden of Eden" in mausoleum of Galla Placidia. UNESCO World heritage site. Ravenna, Italy. You are looking at ceiling in shape of shell. All by --Mile (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Large pipe elbows for the Army are formed at Tube Turns, Inc. 1a35067v.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 18:22:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Large pipe elbows for the Army are formed at Tube Turns, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alfred T. Palmer, uploaded and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the light and the colors here. Still quite good for a picture from the 1940s. -- Yann (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --XRay talk 18:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noticed some hairs in the scan. --LB 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust spot everywhere --LivioAndronico talk 19:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:14 05 2015 Gomphus pulchellus Keiljungfer 05.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 17:04:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dragon-fly Gomphus pulchellus

File:Rotring Isograph and Rapidograph Technical Pens disassembled.svg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 16:53:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Disassembled Rotring Isograph and Rapidograph technical pens, vector drawing.
  • CTRL + how much you want to works with every image,anyway i delete my oppose,but i'm not very sure --LivioAndronico talk 20:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
The difference is, that with a vector graphic like this you can enlarge it infinitely without negative effects. The default display size really doesn't matter here. --El Grafo (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, that looks extremely realistic to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Prospect Park New York May 2015 008.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2015 at 00:49:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Prospect Park Lake

File:Still Pond 2, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 17:24:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Still Pond, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Laitche -- Laitche (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Depicting the interplay of light and the shadow. Beautiful colors, nice composition and good quality. -- Laitche (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not bad, but the other one is better. Too dark for me. Yann (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. It's a bit dark yes but it's a shadowy scene, with only small patches of light reaching the pond. I think the brightness is suitable for the scene. And I think it's different enough to the other FPC that it can stand alone. The focus is mostly on the reflection of the pond, with the flowers and trees framing it. Diliff (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, what colors, reflection and light. And nice with a digression from church interiors;) It is good to come out! -- Slaunger (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Now this one I can Symbol support vote.svg Support. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very dreamy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the diagonals formed by the light. --King of ♠ 00:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course, no doubt, awesome --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This look like a paint --LivioAndronico talk 19:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Gombak Selangor Batu-Caves-01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 13:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The statue of Lord Murugan at Batu Caves, Gombak, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The 'Lord Murugan Statue' in Batu Caves, Malaysia is the tallest statue of Hindu deity in Malaysia and second tallest statue of Hindu deity in the world.
    All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Great view of the statue! (What counts most.) But background blurred a little and readability of inscriptions below could be better. --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great everything!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now this is what we mean by "wow". Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great work and interesting. One perhaps improvable aspect: The cliffs in the background at the top have an almost plastic look. Maybe noise reduction should be applied less agressively there to better bring out the texture? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I doubt the signs would be more legible unless Uwe did a panoramic stitch so that they weren't right at the edge of the frame. Wow overcomes minor technical issues for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Might be slightly oversharpened, but very good anyways. --King of ♠ 00:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --DXR (talk) 07:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Slightly over-sharpened at full size for my taste. On the other hand, that makes the statue really pop at smaller sizes (e.g. 682 × 1,024). --El Grafo (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The bottom crop is tricky and the left part doesn't look straight, but hell of a picture anyhow Poco2 18:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Purekkari neeme rändrahn 2014.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 13:03:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Boulder in Cape Purekkari
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by MinuHiiumaa - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice lights, but a little too dark. --Tremonist (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice colors and light but some frame's focus are changed. If that problem is fixed, I would support. --Laitche (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support, OK, I overlook that focus change but if the creator can fix it, that would be better. --Laitche (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent lighting. Quality is fine IMO. --King of ♠ 00:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per King of Hearts. --Code (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 18:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice light, place and quality, FP to me Poco2 18:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful --99of9 (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Viljandi järv ja lossimäed.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 13:03:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Viljandi from castle hill

File:2015 Góry Złote z Borówkowej.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 10:10:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden Mountains (Sudetes)

File:Misvormde nevelzwam (Clitocybe nebularis) 02.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 04:58:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Barker Dam Joshua Tree December 2013 004.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2015 at 01:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rocks along Barker Dam Trail
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 01:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 01:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful colours, nice vista, great place overall. --Tremonist (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Pleasant view. Though, I think these shadows are a bit too dark as they almost completely hides some parts. Furthermore, the top of the mountain on the right is missing for me. Probably QP, not FP, but I'll leave it as neutral because I really like the illumination and the atmosphere in it. Still it looks quite ordinary. -- Pofka (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I'm not really a fan of the composition actually. It's feels unbalanced and with a lack of compositional focus. What is it trying to show? The afternoon light is nice, but that's about all I can really appreciate about it. Diliff (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Pofka: I filled in the shadows a bit; better? --King of ♠ 00:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Bluebells ICM, Ashridge Estate, 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 22:40:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bluebells at Ashridge Estate
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The bluebells with beech trees at Ashridge Estate. The image is the result of intentional camera movement (ICM), which creates an impressionistic effect. All by Colin.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's 16:9 so fill you screen. Or zoom to 100% to appreciate the slightly grainy streaks of colour. Educational imagery is more than sharp lenses and megapixel panoramas. Sometimes conveying the impression of a bluebell woodland is more important than a straight capture with all the distractions such a photograph may contain. -- Colin (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No explanation needed.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no FP, no wow to me. --Ralf Roleček 22:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't undestant this kind of images....I wait for give my vote --LivioAndronico talk 23:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Abstract, very nice. --King of ♠ 01:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support simply great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice fine art, but not FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Great colours. Has both artistic and educational value. --Code (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice demonstration of a classic photographic technique – and pleasing to the eye as well. --El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, I like it. In this case I don´t miss sharpness at all. ;-) --Hubertl (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressionism revisited. :) --Tremonist (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice and useful image and remarkable but not outstanding. I like this challenging shot. --Laitche (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see no possible usage for such pictures. -- Pofka (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I supported this File:Allébron September 2014.jpg and will also support this. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I knew this image would be controversial. We are geared towards considering images on Commons as source material for the direct illustrations of a concrete article subject in Wikipedia. But only a fraction of our vocabulary concerns nouns, and only a fraction of educational material deals with such concrete subjects one can see or touch. Outside of such direct and obvious illustrations, Commons is a weak repository of images. How does one illustrate educational material on emotions such as "peace", "stress", "calm", "depression", "joy"? Or how about more abstract health issues such as "pain" or "migraine" or "cancer"? Or general topics like "nature" or "urban" where one wants a general impression of the subject without the distractions of specific examples. If you look on Wikipedia, if the articles are illustrated well at all, then it is with free historical work of art. Many of WP's articles are not illustrated, or illustrated with naive and crude image choices. But in a commercial world, were a picture editor can pay for or commission suitable material, then the choice is much wider.
Pick up a New Scientist magazine and there's a good chance the front cover is (or some of the articles contain) an artistic illustration or a surreal photograph. For example, their article on migraine. You can't take a photograph of a migraine. An educational picture editor will choose an image that helps the reader engage with the material, process and store the information they are reading. Sometimes the image helps that process, rather than being the information itself.
If you are British, then bluebell woodland represents Spring, the local natural environment, protected wildflowers, family walks, natures bold colours. And the above image can illustrate those without being an image of the specific beech woodland at Ashridge Estate in Hertfordshire, 10 May 2015. Without going too "contemporary art bollocks", what you get out of an image like this, is partly what you bring to it yourself. -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wish this could go into category Physics. Since its about Optics. cat "Places" isnt so good chosen, you show us technique, place is of other importance. We have 3 "space" cats, and none of Physics. Well, till then... --Mile (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • While I feel this is a good example of intentional camera movement (ICM) (and currently illustrates the Wikipedia article on the subject), I hope it can be appreciated more than just as an example of a photographic technique. If Commons is to embrace its mission of being a comprehensive repository of educational media, then it needs to contain more than just perfectly exposed, sharply rendered photographers of some object. There are so many missing "featured" categories, it is hard to know where to begin. Go to iStockPhoto and click on a category like Nature or Lifestyle. You won't find a picture of a specific woodland or a picture of a specific person. You find images (mainly of people) that deliver an emotion. And most of our featured images deliver very little in the way of emotion. Take the images young woman standing in a field or bike at the summer meadow. These aren't photographed to illustrate "lens flare", or to illustrate an article on young women or on bikes. But there's an educational use for them for sure. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Tomascastelazo's image File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg - is classified under "Natural phenomena", but is all you see just heavy rain? How does it make you feel? I want more of this on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let´s look at this from several perspectives. We feature pictures of different types of architecture, and there is no one right way to architecture. We feature paintings from different schools, abstract, classical, impressionism, etc., and there is no one correct way to painting... The medium to represent those and many other themes is through the camera, through photography. But it turns out that photography, besides being a medium, is also a legitimate art form, just as painting, as music, as architecture. So why not feature photography not just as a representation medium of other art forms but for the art of photography itself? Photography has its own language, capable of not just registering "reality" but also capable of having its own discourse. My support of this image springs from there, from the recognition of the art of photography. If we deny the art of photography, we may as well deny all art. Not that everyone has to like it, just as not everyone appreciates architecture, or types of architecture, but we cannot ignore its place in the world of art. Like it or not, know it or not, should or should not, it has its little corner there. Have a look #REDIRECT[[1]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is right on the Monet Face-wink.svg. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Category Places is not useful. This doesn't show a place, but a technique. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It doesn't show a photographic technique any more than Diliff's cathedral photographs show an HDR stitched megapixel technique. It may be an example of a technique, but that's a very secondary aspect, and not why I took the picture. But worrying about what classification to put it in, is really tomorrows problem, and quite irrelevant to whether or not this is a fine image. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
      • My HDR technique helps to see the cathedral more clearly and with more detail though, and is fairly invisible to the viewer. Your blur technique helps to show the scene less clearly and is fairly dominant in the photo... Your photo illustrates the location poorly, but the effect of the technique well. They're both 'techniques' but they have opposite effects on understanding the place you're viewing. Not saying that's a bad thing. I quite like the effect, and obviously you chose the 'place' to suit the effect but I think Yann is right that the image is more about the technique and the effect than about the place. It's just a category, but I think it has implications for how we view the image too. Out of interest, what are the orange streaks in the grass? Diliff (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
        • It isn't "my blur technique" and isn't even an original subject for the technique. The straight photo is here, which explains the colours. Saying the "photo illustrates the location poorly" is missing the point. The purpose isn't to illustrate the specific beech woodland at Ashridge Estate in Hertfordshire on 10 May 2015. Nor, I believe, is its only education function to illustrate a photographic technique. That's like looking at The Scream and thinking only of a painting using oil, tempera, pastel and crayon on cardboard, or complaining it is a poor likeness of a person compared to a studio photograph taken with the latest Canon L portrait lens. There is far more to educational imagery than this conservative approach. -- Colin (talk)
          • @Colin you have a nice fantasy :-) and sorry, but you are not Edvard Munch too ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
          • I wasn't saying 'your' technique in the sense that you invented it. It's simply yours because you're using it. Also, I agree with you that the purpose of the photo isn't to illustrate "specific beech woodland at Ashridge Estate etc", but we were discussing it in the context of what the suitable category is, and if it doesn't illustrate the place well, why is the category 'places'? That's the point I was making. Perhaps we need a new category: "artistic expression". I don't think it's a fair comparison though to think about it like The Scream. That is an established artistic work, and would be categorised as such. We don't need to break that work down to a technique in order to find an educational use for it because it is already notable and as such educational for that reason - it illustrates the work of a notable artist. I don't agree with Alchemist-HP's comments above at all though. I don't think it matters that you're not Edvard Munch. Anyone can create art, and your works don't become art only when others start respecting you as an 'artist'. But I'm not sure that Commons is intended to be a repository for non-notable art. It would have to serve an educational purpose beyond being merely art. I think this image does that though, by being a fairly clear example of the technique. Not all art could necessarily do that. Diliff (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I agree that media on Commons has to have some educational purpose, whether direct photography, artistic photography, drawing, painting, or video. We already have featured pictures that take a non-direct non-documentary approach to photography. For example:
Now I don't want to compare directly with any specific examples above, but just talk generally. We have images where the subject is contrived or the lighting hides detail, where colours are removed or altered, where the subject is obscured through movement or rain. The effect is artistic at the expense of a straight documentary photograph of a regular unaltered subject. But something else is gained, we hope, and educational qualities are altered but not eliminated. Some of us like to (only) take straight photographs that maximize their encyclopaedic value in their opinion. That's fine but not the only way to create educational media. -- Colin (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support you are really crazy --The Photographer (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry per Laitche --LivioAndronico talk 18:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Pofka, D kuba (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 10:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Diliff (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I also supported File:Allébron September 2014.jpg, but this one is just too much. On the other side the colors look fine and I cannot say how it would look if I had shot it, therefore my vote is neutral Poco2 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Crocodylus acutus camouflage.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 21:06:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • If it is this you want to show, you are of course right. But I still find the reflections too disturbing. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support A lot of reflections. Interesting. --XRay talk 18:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Inevitable reflections. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's not a typical image that makes you say "wow," with anything distinctive in it - but that's precisely how the camouflage manages to work so well. --King of ♠ 06:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Royal Navy Sea King helicopter comes to the aid of French fishing vessel 'Alf' in the Irish Sea (8675799486).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 13:40:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Sea King rescue helicopter of the UK Royal Navy assists French fishing vessel 'Alf' in the Irish Sea.
@LivioAndronico Double vote! --Laitche (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support per Pofka and I can accept the quality in this conditions. --Laitche (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Three women tiredly look at Antoin Sevruguin as he photographs them in the late 19th century..jpeg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 12:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Three women tiredly look at Antoin Sevruguin as he photographs them in the late 19th century
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Yann. --Tremonist (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Per others. The quality probably nowhere is near the QP standards, not even talking about the FP. Check the middle woman nose. The quality is so poor that it is pixeled. -- Pofka (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It appears that this image was up-sampled, which introduced strong pixelization. I've uploaded what appears to be the original from the given source → @Yann, Tremonist, Pofka: please have another look. --El Grafo (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Quality still is problematic. Pixels spots everywhere, especially on cheeks, but visible everywhere else as well. By featuring this we would put the lath way too low. -- Pofka (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Quality is better, but still not good enough. There is quite a lot of noise, and it needs restoration anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment per Pofka and Yann. --Tremonist (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:MK33871 Limburger Dom.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 12:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Limburg Cathedral
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Limburg Cathedral, created by Martin Kraft - uploaded by Martin Kraft - nominated by Photomaster2015 -- Photomaster2015 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Photomaster2015 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Obstruction by the foreground buildings. Yann (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too cloudy. --Tremonist (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree to Yann, but disagree to Tremonist. --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Yann. Everything looks way too messy in this composition. Some of these buildings looks quite nice (especially the one at the left down corner) and could even improve the whole composition if captured somehow differently. Though, there also are not appealing spots: that damaged wall looks so poor, middle building covers the church way too much and the "dead" trees adds even more sadness to the already full of grey picture. Although, I actually like the sky as it looks quite dramatic. Pity, but the whole composition doesn't work for me. Sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. No good composition for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of the problems noted above Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC) It does fall within the guidelines (Anyone can revert my edit.). --Laitche (talk) 11:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am repeating myself, but this image should not be FPXed. FPX is not meant to be the last nail in the coffin, but a simple process for images that have zero chance because of nonnegotiable flaws. A few people say that they don't think that the image is good enough (and that is absolutely fine), but that does not mean that the image is "not falling within the guidelines" (yes, you can construct the case that this is bad composition, but Limburg is a very tight-packed place and I myself failed to get any reasonable shot of the cathedral from this direction, so that image is pretty good given the circumstances and the photographer is not at fault). FPX is for bad images and while this perhaps is no FP, it is not a bad image. I think that I (and at least Poco and Colin in other cases) made myself clear that using FPX for such cases is rude to the photographer and nominator and beyond that serves nearly no use (an image without support has only five days anyway). --DXR (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Hi everybody. Thanks for commenting on this picture, I'ld never have nominated here myself. This photo was just a kind of test shot taken from the roof top of a parking garage why waiting for the next train in the train station near by. I wasn't realy satisfied with the perspectiv since there where some realy ugly buildungs framing this shot at the right and bottom, so there was not realy a chance to take a different crop. I uploaded this photos and some detail shoots (MK33873 Limburger Dom.jpg MK33874 Limburger Dom.jpg) because I realy liked the lighting and the sky, but I am definitly not done with this cathedral ;)
    @Pofka: These trees are not dead, they are just a bit late for early spring ;) // Martin K. (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Martin K. ??? You mean that fall in my comment? That is "fall within", it's a set. Not dead... --Laitche (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC) OK, I understood :) --Laitche (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Laitche: Ups, sorry: That comment was targeted on Pofka's post. // Martin K. (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ana Ivanović - Masters de Madrid 2015 - 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 12:10:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ana Ivanović at the Madrid Open 2015, Madrid, Spain.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ana Ivanović at the Madrid Open 2015, Madrid, Spain. The crop is not tighter to see the net and have better context and depth. Created, uploaded, nominated -- Kadellar (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think my primitive brain made me vote. --The Photographer (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral due to quality problems. --Tremonist (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you please be more specific? --Kadellar (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That grey thing was quite difficult to figure out what it is due to the poor quality of it. Tennis ball seems quite blurred as well. There also are a lot of visible pixels all over the player, especially seen on her face, arms and legs. This is the major issue. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pofka (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its sport shot, Ana is well in focus, ball at some 100 km/h made some distance in that milisecond. Sun would solve it, but also spoil it since i like there is no clear shadow of player on clay which often disturbs so much. Maybe i would crop the net so you concentrate solely on Ana ;) (yes, we dont have female voters here). Gray thing Pofka mentioned is microphone, sure is out of focus - no relevance. At 263 mm this is very well executed.--Mile (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but not outstanding for me --LivioAndronico talk 23:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Not quite FP for me either, the action you've captured is good (better if the ball is closer to her racquet though), but the composition not so good. I'd prefer to see her take up much more of the frame, but I don't think you have enough detail to crop it that much. Diliff (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually I prefer the angle and moment to the other one you nominated some days ago. I'd probably get rid of the net, though. Poco2 18:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Rohrbach 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 12:08:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rohrbach, Ettenstatt, Ortsansicht

File:Jatra Posters and a Tram.JPG [edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 11:52:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jatra Posters and a Tram
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Previously nominated image, no deletion requests from anyone due to alleged FOP issue, hence re-nomination. c/u/n by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as I just said --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I never understood such pictures, but previously some of them actually passed, so maybe that's just me? But for me it simply looks like: "The more you blur, the better it looks" ? By going this way soon we will nominate a few random color pixels for the Featured Pictures. It is barely possible to see anything in this picture, excluding that strange poster which is not extraordinary. I absolutely have no clue where it would be possible to use such image. It has no encyclopedia value. It even hurts my eyes by simply looking at it and I want to scroll down as soon as possible. This reminds me of some "randomly thrown tables and chairs" art. Never understood it and never will. Sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
There's a whole range of potentially suitable articles for pictures like this one: 1, 2, 3... but besides: encyclopedic value in a narrow sense is (luckily!) no requirement for FP stars on Commons. You have - of course! - every right to dislike a picture though. Happens to all of us. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
A picture of Commons must not be useful for an encyclopedia and also needs no educational mission. Commons is a free pool of media and not the photo database of Wikipedia. And this picture can be used very good in Wikipedia. --Ralf Roleček 12:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Blurring isn't a problem for me. Some images looks quite impressive with blurred parts, but in this one I can barely see anything. I cannot like something which I cannot see. It's like tasting ice cream without taste receptors. -- Pofka (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise is a bit high, and I find it compositionally lacking compared to the other "blurred train" pictures we've seen here. --King of ♠ 00:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. --Mile (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hasht Behesht[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 11:01:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

It is a Set nomination.--Monfie (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Is a "set nomination" in accordance with rules? --Tremonist (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
To read rules, press Ctrl+F, type "Set nomination".Monfie (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Left image: Ceiling too dark, upper part of the dome blurred. Right image: Painting seems ok too me. --Tremonist (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mexican fast street food.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2015 at 04:22:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea but poor quality, sorry, and the look on the background peoples’ faces ruins it. Strong CA, sides leaning, white objects blown, the reddish apron seems channel-blown too (blueish look on the bright parts). A tighter framing would have done better (just the one lady doing her work). --Kreuzschnabel 07:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @ Kreuzschnabel, thanks for the suggestion, but the idea of the image is everything, food, people, environment... I used a 10mm lens to get as much in as possible... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • You perfectly described how to take cluttered, overbusy pictures. Squeezing as much as possible into the frame is not a way to take breathtaking images. Less is more. --Kreuzschnabel 09:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you eliminate CA, it's fine for me. Can you add coordinates, please? --Kadellar (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @ Kadellar, removed CA, added location in image description. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Symbol support vote.svg Support now. --Kadellar (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral due to quality problems. --Tremonist (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality could be better but something different at least. --Mile (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The women at the left look a bit distorted. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria in Trastevere - Cappella Altemps.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 08:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Santa Maria in Trastevere - Cappella Altemps
  • see the crop carefully, pixels are short of a four-step. --Laitche (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Miners shower, Rammelsberg Mining Museum, Harz, Germany, 2015-05-18-.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 20:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Miners' shower in Rammelsberg Mining Museum
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Rammelsberg mining museum in Lower Saxony, Germany is a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Here is shown the miners' shower room. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As beautiful and well-done in its own way as David's churches. Daniel Case (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ordinary can be beautiful. --King of ♠ 04:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King once again --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yet an other symmetrical image but with a different motive than the churches, the ceilings and the trainstations! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Villy Fink Isaksen: I placed windows on one side and port openings on the other just to make you less symmetrically bored.Smile -- Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Well done but sides still leaning out IMHO, should be easily fixable --Kreuzschnabel 07:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Kreuzschnabel:: Thanks for your observation. You are correct. I have now uploaded a corrected version. -- Slaunger (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, but no wow. Sorry. Yann (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • That is OK. I appreciate every review. Smile -- Slaunger (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I partly agree with Yann, it's not the most exciting interior, but the picture is as good as it gets. --Kadellar (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Yann --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another example of "So ugly, but catches your view for some unknown reason". -- Pofka (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 18:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. Professional-quality photography of an important aspect of history. -- Colin (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Excellent (and different). --Pugilist (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice mood. I am not certain but that may be posterization. --Laitche (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your observation, Laitche. Again I am impressed by your careful review and scrutiny. I believe you are correct that there is a little posterization in that dark corner. The photo is an HDR tone-mapped photo from three exposures 2 EV apart. That corner was very dark and I guess that despite the HDR and due to the limited dynamic range of my sensor, the posterization there has appeared due to a quite dramatic lift of shadows in Lightroom. I have tried to spend 20 mins again now fiddling around with a radial filter over that patch in Lightroom to try and make it better. It has not been a success, so I am not uploading a new version. I am afraid there is just not much that I can do about it. If I do not lift the shadows as much I feel it compromises the overall impression of the photo too much. In my opinion this small area of sub-optimal quality has negligable impact on the image when seen in its entirety. It is a question of making a reasonable tradeoff. My camera only allows three bracketed exposures and they cannot be separated more than 2 EV apart. I guess that I could have been even more careful and taken two sets of bracketed exposures to get six exposures 2 EV apart and get a larger dynamic range (Diliff normally uses five exposures in his church interiors, which is natively supported with his camera). But even then, my longest exposure was 13 s here and my camera allows only up to 30 s, so there is not much more I could have done to get the light out of that corner unless I had opened the aperture up from f/11, but then I would have lost DOF. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your comment again! It seems I have to be honest, I am guessing overall this HDR image is just a little bit poterized. Please look at the windows very carefully, just my opinion :) --Laitche (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
      • If your longest exposure was 13 seconds then you could have easily doubled the luminosity of the shadows.... Or simply bumped up your ISO a bit. The thing that many people forget (or don't understand) is that you can actually use higher ISOs with HDR tone mapping, as long as your darkest exposures in the bracket are exposed properly for the shadows. ISO 500-800 on most cameras will actually look okay as long as there are no dark areas in the image (the detail in the brightest 1/3 of the histogram will have very little noise at all). So you could have easily gone to ISO 400 without too many problems with noise IMO. ISO 100 is great for single exposures but unnecessary for HDR work. Diliff (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but not outstanding to me, the perspective is nice but I miss a special touch here Poco2 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Møns Klint beech trees in gorge 2015-04-01-4864.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 19:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common beech in a gorge leading to the ocean
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info If you think the 'sky' looks weird: It is not sky, see the file page :-) Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOHOW! Clin 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You better fix remove the CAs (some are look like halos) around the trees if you can. --Laitche (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality is not the best, however, I dont care, I want to see more! --The Photographer (talk) 22:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support :) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mysterious. --King of ♠ 04:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Creepy. A pity that the quality isn't better. --Code (talk) 05:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 05:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — as others. Yann (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Yes, this color of the ocean is bewitching, enchanting, fascinating and if this color is only this moment like blue hour or dusk or something, it's amazing but seems always this color and if without the color, the composition is ordinary and the quality is not good as others say so I don't think this shot is outstanding. Or am I wrong? only this moment? --Laitche (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Additional comment: I am not negative for this photo, I want something special at least one plus the color. --Laitche (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That's some really horrific stuff. The picture definitely has emotion and perceives it perfectly. -- Pofka (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Laitche, The Photographer, Code and others. Thanks for your reviews! I agree with the comments that if you zoom in on the photo to inspect the pixel quality it is not something that blows your mind. There was a very big contrast in the scene, and to get a wide enough field of view I had to use my crappiest lens, which is the Canon EF-S 18-55 mm kit lens. Thanks to Lightroom it was possible for me to make it into something useful, the default jpg generated by the camera looked less than promising. I have corrected for CA already in LR, but I do agree with Laitche that there are some halos left. It is not something I have skill to further repair, I am afraid. Also, regarding the composition, which Laitche points out: I have several shots from the place and have experimented with many different crops. I have tried to find ones, where there are not so many trees at inclined angles intersecting the sides, but impossible due to the nature of the gorge and the half-tilted trees. The greatest asset is the mood and unusual backgroound light and the photo is best seen in its entirety I think, where I do think the composition is rather appealing. Laitche questions if the view is unusual. I would say it is not particularly unusual at this site, which is one of the most astonishing natural spots in my small home country. I think that at most times of the year it will be possible to find spots with an unusual atmosphere and light. Perhaps not exactly like this, but featurable in some sense if you have a little patience and seek it. This aerial photo of the area gives a good impression of how the milky sea water looks like on a sunny day. For these photos I was just lucky to pass by when the light was good over the sea with shade over the gorge and notice a possible good framing with a 'fake' magic sky by looking down steeply. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wonder if a 2:1 crop (removing the bottom) would be stronger. -- Colin (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like a still from a Tim Burton movie :-) Impressive photo, high quality, lots of wow.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Top, that's a nice atmosphere captured here! Poco2 20:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Aguarales de Valpalmas, Zaragoza, España, 2015-01-06, DD 26.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 18:11:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Los Aguarales de Valpalmas, is a rare, fragile and dynamic geological phenomena located near Valpalmas, Zaragoza, Spain. The landscape is the result of water flows over fragile material in a process known as piping.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Los Aguarales de Valpalmas, is a rare, fragile and dynamic geological phenomena located near Valpalmas, Zaragoza, Spain. The landscape is the result of water flows over fragile material in a process known as piping. All by me, Poco2 18:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 18:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is for me a very interesting geological formation. I have never seen anything like it. It took me a long time to get any idea of scale until I noticed the twig and other plant debris there. On the one hand it makes you curious to try and figure what is going on (and I did read a machine-translated version of the article on Spanish Wikipedia, where the photo is used to better understand); on the other hand the lack of an evident sense of scale is also confusing for the observer. I have a problem with the chosen focal distance which is in the immediate foreground, leading to a large fraction of the image being out of focus. This can be a good effect if you want to highlight a special interesting part of the formation and attract the eye to it, but it does not work very convincing for me in this case. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    To be honest, the picture looks pretty much the way I wanted it to look like, I could have tried a higher f number but then would have good sharpness issues overall and I couldn't get further to increase the focal length with a similar frame because the perspective would have been completely different (the angle of view would have had to be higher, different picture indeed). And yes, I deliberately introduced a factor of "confusion" due to a missing scale. Is it a high mountain range or small heaps? That actually makes the picture the more interesting to me. Poco2 20:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is special. --Tremonist (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting! --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Reminds Lithuanian cake Šakotis. Simply cannot say no to something which looks like a sea of these delicious things. -- Pofka (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea and interesting photo but overall, it is lacking variation for me. I want some kind of tension or decoration which means something making the photo more attractive, like a golden hours light or fogs or condensation or like that. --Laitche (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Иультинский район.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 16:37:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Иультинский район,Iultinsky area
  • I still oppose, sorry, also per KoH. --Kadellar (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one is worth to save. So nice scenery from Russia. Border removed, watermark also, jpeg as before. Let give photo a try. --Mile (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe is tilted !? --Mile (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support I am probably neutral on the picture alone as it has a technical quality a bit below the high FP landscape bar. But for me, the location is a mitigating factor. I do not think we have much other pictures from this very remote and thinly populated area of Russia. So value put it just above the FP threshold for me. Maybe I am also touched on a soft spot; it reminds me of a small settlement in Northwest Greenland I once visited. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I don't find the composition very interesting; in particular, I think the lower crop cuts off the water in an awkward place. Perhaps a lower framing to include more foreground and less sky would be better. --King of ♠ 00:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Croped to rule of thirds.--Mile (talk) 06:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Stirling railway station - 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 16:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stirling railway station
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Stirling railway station. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Small tilt and blue channel satured (WB) Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done, much better --The Photographer (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I largely agree with The Photographer, although I think the tilt is more a slight perspective issue in the left part of the image. WB too cold, I think (check WB on white paint on pillar). -- Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The Photographer, Slaunger: I have uploaded a new version correcting the slight tilt and the WB (according to LR, 250 K warmer, which is not much). --Kadellar (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the edit. I think it is an FP now. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find this a bit different (and refreshing) compared to the recent spurt of train station FPCs we've seen. --King of ♠ 00:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King. Very nice! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support When blurred item actually improves image. -- Pofka (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the perspective and ghostly train. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Basilique Saint-Remi de Reims Exterior 1, Reims, France - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 15:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Diliff (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmm. Of course there is Diliff-execution and therefore great quality, but honestly I am not a fan of the angle (I understand that you (Diliff) didn't nominate it). I stood there a year ago, and I felt that the straight-on angle works better. Of course your image is much better technically (and much colder, fwiw), but having just a bit of the right surface of the right tower looks a bit odd to me, especially given that we have much more of the left tower. It is good to see that your version included the transept, which is a major plus. I realize you also have a version that looks very similar to mine, but imo is improvable w.r.t. PC (e.g. the rose is clearly not a perfect circle). Imho that second version, better processed and perhaps with a less squary crop could be a good FP. --DXR (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • From memory, I applied a small amount of vertical compression to it to avoid too much distortion in the towers (I could be wrong, but it would explain the slightly squashed rose). I think both views have different strengths and weaknesses but overall, showing the transept is useful for an understanding of the shape of it. I enjoy the symmetry of a straight on view, but you lose a sense of what the building really is. A full frontal view a church is often nothing more than a study of its face, so I try to get a diagonal view of the church when it is practical to do so (often there are too many obstructions for a good view). But yes, you're right. I didn't nominate it, so I suppose it's Paris16's choice. I could support either, and I'd be happy to restitch without vertical compression if you think it's necessary (I didn't notice the rose until you mentioned it - it's only very slightly squashed). Diliff (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I quite like your face analogy, and fair enough. Of course I don't intend to oppose or do anything like that and like with portraits, it might indeed just be personal preference. I personally find that tall towers make diagonals prone to strange effects, especially with full PC (and so I get your reasoning for slight squishing of the height). Perhaps I simply have a mind that works best in 45° increments ;-) --DXR (talk) 05:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It needs a vertical perspective correction IMO. The right side is leaning in. Otherwise great quality and composition is ok. Poco2 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmm, yes slightly.. It looks like Paris 16 has introduced that problem when he did some perspective correction on it. I compared it to the previous version and while mine wasn't perfect (seems to be leaning outwards on both sides a tiny bit), he seems to have made it worse. Oh well, I'll see if I can fix it. Diliff (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Keble College Chapel Interior 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 13:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The choir and sanctuary of Keble College Chapel, facing east in Oxford, England.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by mirrys 13:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mirrys (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just my opinion, this is an alternative of that nomination, or not? --Laitche (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I must admit, it is very similar but it's not of exactly the same thing. This is of the choir and sanctuary, the other one is of the nave which also shows the choir and sanctuary in the background. The focus is on different parts of the chapel but the views do overlap a bit. Diliff (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I tend to think the geometric distortions at the top of the pillars at the sides are simply too large to not distract the viewer. I do not find this nomination as good as the pther FP from the same college. Moreover, there is something which appear unbalanced to me in the foreground to the left, see annotation. It may be it is such in the college - often things are not quite symmetrical, it just distrcats my eye a bit. Otherwise very good. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • My interior panoramas are quite methodical so I would be surprised if there was a major problem with the symmetry of the panorama, if it's something very asymmetrical in the scene, it's probably because the reality is like that. Yes, the horizontal line near the bottom does seem to tilt a little bit. It's usually the result of not quite centring the panorama perfectly. When the centre point is set slightly to the left or right of the centre (really just a couple of pixels off-centre), it has the effect of shifting the perspective slightly, and horizontal lines will lean a tiny bit. That's what's happened here I think. It wouldn't be so significant that it would completely upset the balance of the scene though and I don't think the slight lean of it is really noticeable unless you line it up against the bottom of the screen or something, but I'm happy to correct it as it's a fairly simple fix. Diliff (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • If it is a simple fix, please correct it, thanks. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support what light! -- Christian Ferrer 12:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Same place and same composition as other nomination, but different point of view and main subject, so different picture. --Kadellar (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If this nomination (as other nomination), both we can promoted? If so, it's OK for me. --Laitche (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 20:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Still Pond 3, Isabella Plantation, Richmond Park, London, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 08:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Isabella Plantation Still Pond
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This is an attempt to correct the criticisms of my previous FPC of this scene, which seemed to be mainly regarding the composition, the flat light and the blown sky. This image improves on each of these faults IMO, although the bright dappled sunlight through the trees does bring its own problems, as the contrast is very extreme. -- Diliff (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 08:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better! --Code (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 09:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support much better colors on sunny day. --Mile (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not a few overexposed parts on the leaves like this one. I added some notes. --Laitche (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • What you're seeing in this image and the one you linked to is actually not overexposure, it's artefacts caused by the slight movement of the leaves blowing in the wind which cannot be merged together properly when the HDR image is processed (and as discussed at length in my previous nomination, it is not possible to capture a scene like this without HDR). I can try to remove the problems by cloning them out, but it's not really possible to avoid completely, and no HDR processing software that I am aware of can remove these ghosts completely and successfully. But I think our obsession with finding problems with small details does sometimes overshadow the bigger picture: does the image deliver the scene to the viewer in an aesthetic and accurate way? I would argue that small amounts of ghosted leaves in the trees doesn't diminish that. You only see it as an artefact when you pixel peep. I could probably hide them completely by downsampling the image. Consider that it's a sharp 50 megapixel image. I could reduce the image to the point where these little details in the problem could be obscured, but Commons would suffer from not having such a detailed image. Diliff (talk) 12:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I understood, it's unavoidable problem with HDR (Sorry, I haven't read the discussion of your previous nomination.) and I can not see them in [downsampled image] as you said. Maybe I was too picky, I deleted the notes. Thanks. --Laitche (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose hmm, way too saturated, imo. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

    • It's so difficult to please everyone. What specifically do you think is too saturated? In my previous nomination, people complained that the colours/lighting was too flat. I haven't increased the saturation of this image at all though. The flowers are actually very bright and saturated and I don't think they are misrepresented. The leaves in the tree are saturated because they are illuminated by the sunlight, not because the saturation has been enhanced digitally. Here's two screen captures from Lightroom of the original RAW files of the flowers and the leaves, showing no additional processing at all. Spring is just a very saturated time of year for colours. Diliff (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually the sky's the dealbreaker for me. Just doesn't look natural here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. The saturation of the sky hasn't been altered either. Diliff (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I uploaded a few version with a lightened sky (which has the effect of making the sky look desaturated). Can you comment on that version? Diliff (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Much (!) better. Symbol support vote.svg Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think (and I know) this reason is not so good for voting but "This cramped and busy composition (including the aspect ratio of the image) does not meet with my tastes..." Other elements are splendid. --Laitche (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I tried a less cramped and less busy composition last time, and it was opposed, so I followed the suggestions and ended with this image. You know what they say "you can't please everybody, all of the time". :-) Maybe you would prefer this composition. I didn't think it would be as successful as a FP though. Diliff (talk) 22:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • That picture is simply wonderful (ok, maybe you should lighten the sky a tad... ;-))! What makes you believe it couldn't stand a chance as FPC? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't think it would stand no chance, I just thought it was a composition that was slightly more artistic (with the focus being on the reflection) which is often not rewarded on Commons. It's also not as high resolution. I considered both images for nomination but thought this one would have a better chance. Maybe I was wrong! Diliff (talk) 11:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, commons (or commoners) could truly benefit from a somewhat bolder approach towards artistic compositions at times --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Martin. --Laitche (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think that's maybe bad decision, both of images for alternative would better, I prefer that one... --Laitche (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Diliff: May I nominate that one as other nomination? --Laitche (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You would be more than welcome to. I do also wonder if people would find it too similar, but we can find out. I think they have different focuses, personally (even if they show the same pond), so it would be fine for me. Diliff (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The HDR look is a bit too strong. It looks weird when the sky is such a dark shade of blue relative to the foreground which is in shade. In my opinion it should be a faint blue, just barely enough to not blow out. --King of ♠ 00:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Wrt sky colour, we are not seeing the sky close to the horizon (where it is light) but relatively high (where it is deeper). The deep blue of the sky varies with the weather and pollution. Today, on my journey to work, I saw solid blue sky through very light green leaves. But other areas of the sky were pale blue and others verging on turquoise. I don't think expecting the sky to be "faint blue, just barely enough to not blow out" is valid if the sky wasn't actually that light a shade of blue. The issues of the sky being very bright compared to a shady area aren't represented by making the sky go pale, which is an artificial result of a sensor blowing on all channels: if you turn up the brightness of a blue (or red, or green) bulb, it doesn't go white. It just goes a more intense and bright blue. -- Colin (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, in addition to what Colin said, I would just add that the point of HDR is to help replicate what the eye sees, not to replicate the limitations of digital camera sensors. I know that traditionally with photography, we would expect to see the sky being brighter than the shaded foliage but I can tell you that when I was there, I could clearly see deep blue sky through the trees. The sky was a paler blue closer to the horizon (and that is reflected in the image where it starts to verge on white) due to the effect of haze and clouds, but up high in the sky as Colin mentioned was a deep blue. I know nothing I can say will necessarily convince your eyes that it looks 'right' as that is subjective, but for me, it looks very close to what I saw when I photographed it. Sometimes HDR can 'overdo' the contrast of the scene but I usually try quite hard to replicate what was seen and not push the contrast and saturation just for dramatic effect. Diliff (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
        • We are limited by the relatively low dynamic range of JPG and computer monitors. The next ultra high definition movie format is supposed to be higher DR and we are promised a higher DR in our TV and monitors to go with it. But even then, it won't match reality because then you'd have a TV that, if it showed a picture of the sun, could burn your retina and fade your furniture fabric :-). Just be grateful we're not pre-1900 where film wasn't even panchromatic and all blue skys were burnt out pure white. -- Colin (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
          • We are limited by the LDR of computer monitors, but we can attempt to replicate the tones that the eye sees, even if we can't replicate the intensity of them. I don't think HDR TVs and monitors that replicate the real luminosity of a scene is really the answer anyway. Yes, we can increase the maximum luminosity but it still has to factor in comfortable ranges suitable to the room that you're watching in. If you're in a dark room watching a film, you don't want an intense beam of sunlight in your face, you want something merely bright relative to the dark room you're watching in to give the illusion of sunlight. In any case, you'd also need a TV screen that covered your entire field of view to replicate how the eye sees. Having highlights that are as bright as the sun but concentrated in a 60" box of pixels would be much harder on the eyes than reality ever could be, because in the real world we actually have to shade the sun away from our eyes if we want to have any hope of seeing something in the shadows, lest it be washed out by the effect of the sunlight reflecting around inside our eyeballs! It would be very difficult to do that with a narrow angle of view that we typically watch a TV with. Diliff (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Amiens Cathedral Transept Crossing, Picardy, France - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2015 at 08:17:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Amiens Cathedral Transept Crossing
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. Something a bit different to my usual church and cathedral interiors (but only a bit!). Instead of being a view directly down the nave, this is a view across the transepts, although Amiens Cathedral is so large that you'd be forgiven for thinking it's a view down the nave! -- Diliff (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 09:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this solemn atmosphere. --Laitche (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Diliff: Almost a painting! Clin 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Haha, yes indeed. I should have tried to replicate the painting's view while I was there, just for fun. :-) It's the opposite direction of my image. But I can see that actually, not a lot has changed. The biggest changes I can see is the flooring has been updated and the iron gate to the choir wasn't there before. Diliff (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 01:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Outstanding as always. The colors of that transept rose, just wow. --DXR (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 20:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Archbasilica of St. John Lateran HD.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2015 at 13:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Archbasilica of St. John Lateran
because on the right there was a great advertisement and on the left a stage ... is the union of 10 photos .... for the top honestly I have not noticed. Thank you.--LivioAndronico talk 21:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support. The image quality still has quite a lot of issues (look at the bottom of the image, the grass is hardly even recognisable as grass, it is soft and looks like a watercolour painting (too much noise reduction?). Thankfully, because it is high resolution and stitched, it can be downsampled to a reasonable resolution to look sharper and to minimise the image quality problems. As for the crop, I can understand why you needed to crop it so close on the sides, but it does make the composition feel a bit cramped. Diliff (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, sorry, but it needs more space, too tight crop everywhere except at the bottom. --Kadellar (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but par Kadellar. Yann (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- exactly the same comments as Diliff. Too much NR. The bottom part is just a mush with no details and unattractive light. I can at least downsize to get the sharpness. -- Colin (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stitching errors, added the notes. --Laitche (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A little bit carelessly but OK :) --Laitche (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm learning Face-smile.svg thanks --LivioAndronico talk 18:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I understand the reasons for the tight crop; honestly the picture is so well done that this is not a real problem. Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Majestic --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Ermita de la Virgen de la Peña, LIC Sierras de Santo Domingo y Caballera, Aniés, Huesca, España, 2015-01-06, DD 08-09 PAN.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2015 at 17:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset view of the Ermita de la Virgen de la Peña (Hermitage of the Virgen of the Rock) with the village of Aniés in the front, province of Huesca, Spain. The oldest parts of the sanctuary are romanic and date from the middle edge (13th century). The hermitage is only accesible on foot through a steep path in the forest or caved in the mountain.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sunset view of the Ermita de la Virgen de la Peña (Hermitage of the Virgen of the Rock) with the village of Aniés in the front, province of Huesca, Spain. The oldest parts of the sanctuary are romanic and date from the middle edge (13th century). The hermitage is only accesible on foot through a steep path in the forest or caved in the mountain. All by me, Poco2 17:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 17:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning work, the lighting and mood is perfect. --93.133.137.42 18:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC) Please log in to vote. Yann (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Exquisite moment and atmosphere. Given sufficient “wow factor”. --Laitche (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 09:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. A great view, but shame about the horizon's overexposure though. This is a perfect candidate for HDR. Diliff (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To my defense: taking this shot was tricky without getting in trouble. I was standing on a rock without any protection and shot a lot of times without looking through the viewfinder (no way to use a tripod and actually no fun to climb there with mine). I have uploaded actually a HDR version but to manage it I had to use a more conservative angle, with a portion of the building cropped. Anyhow, I am not convinced by the HDR result, either. Poco2 18:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Interesting to see the comparison though, but I agree, I'm not convinced by the HDR result or the conservative composition in that version. I know I keep saying it, but you would have more success if you changed your HDR processing. ;-) With Lightroom HDR, you have (almost) full control over it, so much more than Tufuse, which is mostly automatic. Diliff (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing view, excellent quality --The Photographer (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the sunset, but this would be a stunning photo even without it. Daniel Case (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What a view! --King of ♠ 00:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support The top looks way too white. Though, overall it is great. -- Pofka (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Rainbow-spiral lollipop.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2015 at 10:48:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rainbow spiral lollipop
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by AntanO
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AntanO 10:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good lighting which supplements the object well. Could use a bit tighter cropping though. --LB 15:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessing, postarized. --Laitche (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you specify? --AntanO 16:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm not 100% sure but added a few notes. --Laitche (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not posterization, but "nature" of the candy. --AntanO 17:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's not, I don't mind to remove the notes at all :) --Laitche (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually I agree with you, it almost definitely is posterization, but it's not too significant. Diliff (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, not too significant, IMO posterization mostly means overprocessing. --Laitche (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes it is an indication, but not always. I think we should judge the nomination by what we see though, not by the mistakes we think have been made. I'm not saying you can't have an opinion, but your opinion on what could or should be done differently should be independent of your opinion of the image itself. Just my thoughts on judging anyway. Diliff (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@Diliff: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. --Laitche (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its not bad, i like the colors, but background not so much. At least could be croped some (see note). Done. --Mile (talk) 12:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Object isn't in the centre of image. So it was your target? D kuba (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good colours. --Tremonist (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I know, isn't the best for quality but I love original images --LivioAndronico talk 18:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Fireworks over Houston, Texas (LOC).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2015 at 22:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fireworks over Houston, Texas
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Carol M. Highsmith, uploaded and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is some noise, but seeing the resolution, I hope you will accept it... -- Yann (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. For a scan that's not sharp at full res, I accept that it was scanned perhaps too precisely and try to look at it at a reasonable size, 3000px in this case. It's pretty much sharp except for the building on the right. Nice fireworks but I can't have such an important element of the composition be visibly unsharp at 7 MP. --King of ♠ 23:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Photo from 1980. Its good to see some of it. --Mile (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is bad also for 1980 --LivioAndronico talk 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Mile. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 09:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good scene, and acceptable sharpness if downsized. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The resolution (7475px) is not remarkable since this is an analog photography, Simply the quality is not good and spectators are a bit distracting, imho. --Laitche (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Gorna Leshnica Shara.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2015 at 21:40:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View on Bozovska Reka valley at the,.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gadjowsky - uploaded by Gadjowsky - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent composition and colors. There is some minor posterization in the sky and chromatic aberration in the mountains. --King of ♠ 22:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice view and light but not so details (unsharp) and oversaturation plus CAs, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Heartwrenching oppose Such a great shot.. Such a great angle. Such great light. Such great colors ... until you see that patch of just not-quite-right blue in the sky on the right. And then all the unsharpness and CA, and you want to cry. "Where did it go wrong?" you find yourself asking. Well, shooting it at anything below f/11 was a start. And with ISO 200, to boot. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Daniel. "f/11 ISO 200"! Bollocks. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel Case, I'm afraid. Though I'm not sure whether f/8 and ISO 200 are really to blame here. What a pity! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Excellent composition and colors but not very good quality --LivioAndronico talk 09:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Gadjowsky, Kiril Simeonovski Something went wrong with equipement i suppose. This is second serie of great photos ruined by something. I see its made with D5100 series, nothing wrong with EXIF. D5100 has affected series with sensor position, find it on forum and check serial Number of camera. Some made it on their own, hex key solved it. I would try with some other lens first too see if it repeats and its not the lens. --Mile (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Some of the problem is processing, not just softness/CA. Were the frames taken at the same exposure or was too much post-processing applied? Polarising lens? -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per others. --Tremonist (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Korab vodopad.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2015 at 21:31:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

on the,.
Daniel, it is perfectly reasonable to photograph the ridge to show "the waterfall in context". If "closed in" on the waterfall, it could be anywhere. -- Colin (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
There is so much comtext I almost missed the waterfall. It could be anywhere. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --LivioAndronico talk 09:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The clouds appear too dark. --Tremonist (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ordinary tourist shot. -- Pofka (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Ostrawa, Kościół Niepokalanego Poczęcia NMP 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2015 at 10:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of the Immaculate Conception in Ostrava. Moravian-Silesian Region, Czech Republic.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Halavar - nominated by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Halavar (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice church! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality isn't outstanding but the composition is very good --LivioAndronico talk 11:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks a bit hazy. Raise the contrast maybe? --King of ♠ 16:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Version with more contrast uploaded. Hope it's better now:) --Halavar (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    Perhaps I should have been more emphatic - it could still use more contrast. --King of ♠ 22:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 12:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not eye-catching enough for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support One of these pictures when you doubt that it is FP, but in the same way you find it quite good. Probably minimum standards are passed. -- Pofka (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good QI of this church. -- Colin (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2013 02 Foz do Iguacu 248.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2015 at 10:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iguazu Falls, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil

File:Wrocław Główny (Breslau Hauptbahnhof) by night.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 May 2015 at 14:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wrocław Główny (Breslau Hauptbahnhof) by night
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fascinating angle on a lovely old train shed. A bit distorted and unsharp near the left edge, and the signals are a little posterized, but as I so often say I don't think that's enough to ruin this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Quality is OK for me and I like this empty and antique-looking mood. --Laitche (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I was "You cannot see the wood for the trees.". It is an unbalanced composition as DXR mentioned so I've changed my vote to neutral. --Laitche (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Ambiance overcomes technical shortcomings. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nice use of line and perspective. I think the composition would be even better if the point of convergence were a bit further to the right. --King of ♠ 06:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Objection I can overlook the modern train at the right side but if the vanishing point were further to the right, that train would appear much more (means they can't crop out the train in this composition) and ruins this mood, just my opinion :) --Laitche (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 10:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but imo the right side crop is not good. The building either needs some space or should be cut, but this creates an unbalanced composition for me. --DXR (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are hundreds of train station photos on Commons. This one is a QI but not more. Why downsized 2/3? The right hand side isn't very interesting and no people to add interest to make up for this. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per DXR. — Julian H. 13:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Tarassac hamlet, Hérault.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 May 2015 at 11:27:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tarassac hamlet, Hérault, France
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 11:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 11:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice mountain range with all shades of green and blue. --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nice -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Surely nice! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice view, but neither the lighting nor the composition work for me. The river is there but doesn't stand out to help the composition. Furthermore the big trees in the foreground are too predominating, sorry, Poco2 20:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the colors are a bit too muted for me. --King of ♠ 06:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support now. --King of ♠ 22:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In my defense, it is the last hour of the sun and the colors of spring were as spectacular in reality. Vibrance aside, the file is edited very little and very close to the RAW file. The spectacular colors of the last sun hour in this beautifull valley are of course the main subject here, not at all any river. The particular light of that time in that location has made this a magical place during some moments. I am particularly happy and lucky to have seen this show, to have had the possibility to take the photo and to share it to you. This work a lot for me. -- Christian Ferrer 08:13, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me is very beautiful,good light,composition isn't good like others but ever good. I love your panoramas --LivioAndronico talk 11:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but per Poco and King. --Laitche (talk) 10:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg New version @King of Hearts:, @Poco a poco:, @Laitche:, thanks for your rewiews, the first time I decreased too much the luminosity, I have now uploaded a version with more light. -- Christian Ferrer 12:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    I think my favorite is still the very first version uploaded. I actually like the hazy feeling, it's just that on the second version I feel saturation was turned down way too much. I think the contrast boost in the third and fourth versions was unnecessary. --King of ♠ 14:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    The main topic I see here is the composition rather that then curves, and that wasn't addressed in the new version. Poco2 16:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @King of Hearts: I uploaded a version very close to the first version but just with a little more light. -- Christian Ferrer 15:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: OK, I withdraw my vote. --Laitche (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, content, lights/shadows. --Kikos (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice landscape --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Cherz y Pas Ciaulong.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 May 2015 at 21:16:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Ciaulong pass on the Sella Ronda in the Dolomites
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting just isn't doing wonders for me; a bit hazy. --King of ♠ 23:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please add a category above. Yann (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 19:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KoH, sure a nice view but there is nothing eye-catching here to grant it a FP stamp, sorry. Poco2 19:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me in FP isn't important the quality (like in QI) but the result and the effect and this effect is very good for me.--LivioAndronico talk 21:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The white is a bit grayish, I think the background is nice but the foreground ruins the whole composition. --Laitche (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment When the snow looks white on a picture it is mostly overexposed. Thanks for the review--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, I don't think this is underexposed because the brightest parts are just white. --Laitche (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I like your works very much. I think this composition is one of the finest in the FPs and this snow is very nice :) --Laitche (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice light and atmosphere, foreground could be sharper. --Code (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Strange. I'm sure it was there... --Code (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

File:13-09-01-kochtreffen-wien-RalfR-09.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2015 at 22:13:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Moulin Legumes No.2, all by Ralf Roletschek
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ralf Roleček 22:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Different is always good if done well. A little bit oversharpened, maybe, but not enough to ruin it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose about sharpness per Daniel and a bit tight crop, sorry. --Laitche (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me, there's nothing special about both the subject itself and the way it was photographed. Quality isn't that great either, I had to zoom in to 100% to see that the white handle is actually thicker than 1mm at the side – that vertical rim is blending in with the background. --El Grafo (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting kitchen tool. --Tremonist (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a dust spot (see note). Poco2 19:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral until the dust will be repair --LivioAndronico talk 21:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Smudges removed. --Mile (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok now --LivioAndronico talk 09:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI; not remarkable. Noisy and not sharp considering the lowish resolution. Background is uninspiring and limits usefulness (a kitchen setting would have been more appropriate). -- Colin (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. By featuring this we would have to feature every random household item somebody captures with a good camera. Absolutely nothing extraordinary here. -- Pofka (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

File:14-09-02-oslo-RalfR-393.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2015 at 22:06:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oslo Harbour and City Hall
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO the image actually needs the water, for balance, and to show (the certainly blurred) reflections on the water.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KlausFoehl (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too bottom heavy after crop -- KlausFoehl (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @KlausFoehl: thanks for your opinion, that's not mine. 50% from the water can be croped out without lost any information or balance, but it get more suspense and the foreground view don't drown ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support better now. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice mood. Maybe the WB could be a little more yellow. --King of ♠ 06:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Some details could be sharper.--XRay talk 09:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just a QI; not remarkable. -- Colin (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm surprised that this one has so much supporters. I see it as a usual QP as well. -- Pofka (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin and Pofka. --Laitche (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request @Ralf Roletschek: the image is too sharp, you need to use the new artificial "blur technique" like this: File:Bluebells_ICM,_Ashridge_Estate,_2015.jpg for now. Perhaps Colin can help you!? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Alchemist-hp: Hahaha, very nice, you are kidding! --Laitche (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Man kann zwar nichts mehr erkennen aber schön bunt. Viel besser.

File:Cemitério da Consolação, São Paulo city 04.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2015 at 16:56:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Funerary art in Cemitério da Consolação, São Paulo city
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info High relief funerary art in Cemitério da Consolação, São Paulo city. Created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, something weird, or a lack of contrasts or sharpness, seems wash out... and we could have a copyright problem, as this is very likely to be tombstone, and the lack of description made this harder to achieve the educational propose. -- RTA 00:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I respect your opinion, but for me, sharpness level is acceptable. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
      • RTA comment was not about last version Arion --The Photographer (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I know. Anyway, sharpness is good. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, something's strange about this, but that's why I like it. Copyright shouldn't be a issue, as Brazil has FOP. But yes, the description is not very specific. --El Grafo (talk) 07:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Certainly a nice expression. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Sharpness could be improved a little bit. --Tremonist (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Photographer (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite good. Yann (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Verbier Skibrücke01 2015-04-21.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2015 at 12:47:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ski bridge in Verbier
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by KlausFoehl -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting vista, so: why not? --Tremonist (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I really like the subject and the composition but I'm not completely convinced of the technical quality. Your photographic skills definitely deserve a better equipment. For now I'm undecided. --Code (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (IMO) a shot to aim too oddly. --Laitche (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty boring --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. No wow for me. --LB 06:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2013 Ahmanson Cup Regatta yacht Zapata II b photo D Ramey Logan.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2015 at 17:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

2013 Ahmanson Cup Regatta yacht Zapata II
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by WPPilot - uploaded by WPPilot - nominated by Ellin Beltz -- Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- A large sharp image of a sailboat, beautifully lit and perfectly sharp. The image is in use on multiple articles. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good quality and great composition, but unfortunately the picture is tilted cw (see horizon). --Code (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info per Code, it's 1.5 degrees tilted clockwise and easy to fix it. --Laitche (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I support if tilted horizon fixed. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have uploaded an alt using the 1.5 factor for rotation. --WPPilot (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I made the alternative section. --Laitche (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support In this case, tilted horizontal line is acceptable for giving expression to the feeling of stir, IMHO. --Laitche (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. Yann (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dito. --Tremonist (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. --LivioAndronico talk 16:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternative 1[edit]

2013 Ahmanson Cup Regatta yacht Zapata II alt 1

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- A large sharp image of a sailboat, beautifully lit and perfectly sharp. The image is in use on multiple articles. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I Symbol support vote.svg Support the alternative. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tight crop but nice photo. --Laitche (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but too tight crop. And what have of outstanding this? --LivioAndronico talk 21:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose crop is so tight, I'd actually prefer the tilted horizon. --El Grafo (talk) 10:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dito. --Tremonist (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternative 2[edit]

2013 Ahmanson Cup Regatta yacht Zapata II alt 2

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Rotated 1.5 degrees counterclockwise, Cloned the top. @WPPilot:, @Ellin Beltz: if you mind, I will withdraw alternative 2. --Laitche (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I really like the cloned top and slight rotation; and I'm also learning a lot watching the process. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • And I'm also learning lots of English here :) Are you not going to vote for alt2? --Laitche (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as editor. --Laitche (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work. --Tremonist (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Given the self-denial abnegation (which I do not understand) of Laitche, I am not opposed. But although it is a beautiful picture, I do not understand why it should be FP. --LivioAndronico talk 16:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@LivioAndronico:Specifically what do you mean self-denial? You mean I should nominate my own work? Or you mean if I make this one why I support alternative1? or vice versa if I support alt1 why I make alt2? --Laitche (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Wrong term Laitche --LivioAndronico talk 18:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
@LivioAndronico:I'm not so good at English so I'm not sure but if you mean this cloning, that's typical way here(FPC), this one is eight seven years ago. And retouch and effect are different. --Laitche (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
No Laitche....abnegation =renunciation of your own interests in favor of the interests of others. Never seen 2 alternatives for a picture does not own. --LivioAndronico talk 19:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Your English is a little confusing for me, but if you mean 2 alternatives, the alternative1 is not mine, my nomination is only alternative2. But if I'm missing his point, Could someone please explain what Livio is saying with simple English... --Laitche (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete,good in this way --LivioAndronico talk 20:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe I got it, but I don't think this is an abnegation at all :) --Laitche (talk) 20:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Umm, I think it's a bit difficult to explain and I think you can't understand what I mean but I'm not interested in my own interests for now :) --Laitche (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
And this is not renunciation for me, it's very difficult but this is kind of The reverse is also true. but even in Japanese I don't have confidence to explain the state of my mind. --Laitche (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Radical scene. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but not outstanding,only a boat,beautiful but nothing more --LivioAndronico talk 20:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I hope the picture does not start a riot! --WPPilot (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • No problem here, don't worry :) --Laitche (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Hahaha, this boat, btw a "all-wooden Calkins 50" was "considered the Rolls-Royces of the Southern California sail boat racing scene in 1964 when it was built. The design was considered so advanced, it was banned from racing" that is from the page on the boat upon the En site. --WPPilot (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Seems you are having very nice hobbies, I envy you! Haha. --Laitche (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice view, moment and composition but quality is not outstanding and still it is too tight to me Poco2 19:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I think Peter has amazing cloning skill, probably he can clone the both right and left sides and make a work which satisfies your request :) --Laitche (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: X support, X oppose, X neutral → not featured. /Note: this candidate has several alternatives, thus if featured the alternative parameter needs to be specified. /FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC))

File:Fiat 500 in Emilia-Romagna.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2015 at 15:35:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

FIAT 500
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info FIAT 500. All by --Mile (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I suggest a crop,see note --LivioAndronico talk 19:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cropsuggestion as Livioandronico...--Hubertl (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment PetarM, I suggest the use of line on the floor to cut, you will see (and I remade the note). However, I fancy the original crop, what is bothering me is the brightness, the photo could be a little bit more bright on the dark areas of the car. -- RTA 06:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done as suggested. @ LivioAndronico,Hubertl. Its 60th anniversary of this type of car. I know cars pass rarely on FP, but lets try. RTA i added some +EV. Maybe i could extract some more but its pure .jpeg shot. --Mile (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --LivioAndronico talk 11:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, but no much wow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question taken from the Scope page: The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository:

that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". So, my question is how does this image fit into that aim? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It provides the knowledge of the car's appearance. Does that answer your question? Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. How else would you educate people about this model of car? 36.81.16.245 03:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentTomascastelazo,36.81.16.245 Its FIAT 500 60th anniversary. Cult car, a gem of Italian design which made masses of poeple in Italy, Yugoslavia, Poland,... mobile. Somekind of VW Bettle in America. This is photo of car in excellent shape with good contrast in good background. I dont educate them, I show them object in best possible manner. Since photo is worth a 1000 words, its start from here. --Mile (talk) 05:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I dare say the IP was supporting Daniel (and you). COM:SCOPE uses the term "educational", after all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Background is a little unsharp at right but, given how tasty the Fiat is, I can't complain. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes its done so on purpose. Tried to isolate foreground and background on biger aperture, wanted shallow DOF. But is no full frame so this was best. --Mile (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think that's reflection of light but looks like near white paint, above the windows, below the windows to continuing the bonnet, between head-light and front tire and between tail-light and rear tire, especially the part blow the front-light looks like dripping with paint. --Laitche (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry but I have to vote, That whitish reflection below the head-light which looks like dripping with paint is obviously flaw and that can not be overlooked for me. --Laitche (talk) 10:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose background disturbing pretty much --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • to tell you the truth, that Antonio Dalla Valle intrigues me pretty much --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but I see nothing that makes this a FP. --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think that the idea is not bad: a typical shiny italian car in a nice old street with a nice combination of colours. The main problem I see here though is the crop, it is too tight everywhere specially on the left and top (the cropped window e.g. is a pity). If you can provide a different crop I may change my vote. Poco2 19:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me, tight crop --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Liberty Island photo D Ramey Logan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2015 at 13:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Liberty Island
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by D Ramey Logan - uploaded by WPPilot - nominated by WPPilot -- WPPilot (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- WPPilot (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,bad quality,bad perspective,bad light.....and need category--LivioAndronico talk 13:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to quality problems (sharpness &c.). --Tremonist (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - the main features (the island and the structure) are sharp enough, given the distance; it could follow the rule of thirds but in this instance I think the scale is fine; meets the other general requirements (license, 2+mpx etc); biggest plus point is that it is used on a number of articles. Green Giant (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Size, sharpness and subject are fine, it's not an angle which can be gotten by any tourist or from the ferries or tourist boats. I don't see "rule of thirds" in the requirements for featured pictures. I totally fail to see "bad quality" or "bad perspective" or "bad light" here, I see an image which is in wide use across the project which fits the featured picture requirements. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No Wow, average-bad light conditions --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but not FP imo. I dont think 1/320 sec was enough. The images is blurred, over sharpening can not repair it. I dont understand the choice of apperture, you dont need f/9 when you are using a very sharp prime lens (infinite focus here anyway). High educational value, but not one of our finest aerial images.--ArildV (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I took this from a helicopter. It was not gyro mounted and as a result of the shake of the rotors, I used f9 @ 1/320 in an attempt to reduce the vibration of the blades. You can see it first hand here --WPPilot (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • But why not F/4 (or even 2.8) and shorter exposure time since you dont need a small aperture here? The lens is sharp even wide open, and you are on only using a part of the lens (DX camera, and you are also using the crop mode in D7100).--ArildV (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm willing to relax the lighting conditions a bit due to the unique perspective (which alone counts for a good deal of "wow"). But it's just far too unsharp. --King of ♠ 00:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree with Ellin Beltz: This is an angle which can be gotten by any tourist if they are willing to pay for the Chopper ride, as there are several companies offering helicopter tours around NYC. There are tons of images like this out there, and frankly I don't think this one is above average concerning wow-factor. That's not really the photographer's fault though, as quality is quite OK for a picture taken under those conditions. I'd mainly blame my oppose on the unattractive weather conditions, which don't really contribute to the image (to pick up the wording of COM:Image guidelines) and probably contributed to the observed unsharpness (lots of moisture in the air). However, after a very quick look at the category, it seems that this might be a good candidate for COM:VI because of the good perspective. --El Grafo (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'll check on some of my slides I made in 1981 on those chopper flights --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Very strong oppose Besides the amply-documented technical issues, there's the composition—Liberty's head against the very cluttered background of Northeastern New Jersey does not make for anything in the way of wow. And then the timing ... I'm sorry, but having lived in or near that area for most of my life I would have waited till warmer weather, or at least a sunnier day. It would have to be beautiful and green for this image to even begin to have a chance ... at QI, that is. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As others. -- Pofka (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks! Some replies: Not living in NYC, I think it's really cool to see how close Liberty is to New Jersey. Also I am a bit distressed that featured pictures are only ever bright blue skies, or glowing colored sunsets. That may be featured, but it's not very realistic and after a while begins to feel trite. Bright blue skies also produce shadows which compete with the subject of many architecturals and while they may make great WOWs, they obscure the information. I'm not arguing against anything ya'll said, I'm only putting a thought in your mind that this system is producing great photos for the lead pages yes, but also beginning to look very redundant in appearance. Too much color, too much contrast, too much sharpening and it all starts to look like CGI. On a prior nomination of an award-winning photograph of a redwood forest I was told "anyone could take this, but they should wait for a sunny day". The teller must not have ever been in the old growth redwoods because it WAS a sunny day, the trees produce mist and are very tall and no sunlight hits the ground. That - of course - is not applicable in this case, New York does get sun, but I personally found this image of great interest due to the colors not being green and blue with fluffy white clouds and noticing how close she was to New Jersey was a real mind blower. Those WOW shots you linked have deep shadows and make her look like she's 90 miles from shore. Is that WOW or education? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC) PS before anyone gets mad at me, I'm only commenting - I'm not upset about any of these comments, but I am arguing for a bit more flexibility in the system.
@Ellin Beltz: Believe it or not, it's actually possible to have a civil, respectful discussion at FPC, so no worries about that ;-) In fact, I actually agree with many of your points. I'm firmly convinced that a nice sunny day can not be a requirement for a FP and that such conditions alone are not enough to make a picture FP. Any kind of weather is fine in general, as long as it makes sense for the image. There are actually at least three factors that should be considered in this regard, imho.
1) is lighting conditions. The light we have here is very diffuse with hardly any shadows at all, which in this case makes the main subject look rather flat. On the other hand, you are of course right when you say that a bright sunny day usually has deep and sharp shadows, which may or may not be a bad thing, depending on the subject. But there are options between these two extremes. For example, when the sun stands lower, shadows become longer, but softer. Maybe shooting around the golden hour would've worked here …
2) is mood, which is a bit harder to grasp. Here, the bright sunny day usually is a safe bet, because that's what people tend to like. But it's not a requirement, as this current candidate proves, and even really bad weather can lead to very attractive images. My personal approach to photographing in "bad weather" conditions is: Try to make sure the image looks good because of the weather, not despite it (which is basically just a rephrasing of what is written in our image guidelines). In this case (imho), the weather is neither good nor bad, it's just boring. Even that is not a bad thing per se, but in this case it doesn't really work with this scene (again: imho).
3) is influence on image quality. A lot of moisture in the air can severely affect sharpness, but so can heat haze over a hot surface in summer. Whether that's a bad thing or not may depend on the image and should probably be weighed against 1) and 2).
OK, I guess I'll better stop now. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

File:25 P 51XR Mustang N6WJ Precious Metal Reno Air Race 2014 photo D Ramey Logan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 May 2015 at 13:10:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

P 51XR Mustang N6WJ Precious Metal Reno Air Race 2014 photo D Ramey Logan
  • 500mph? Maybe kph. You can assure sharpness by using higher ISO and shutter speed like 1/2500 or 1/4000. Anyway, for planes and helicopters with propellers, it's better to use slower shutter speeds, like 1/400, so that the movement of the blades is better shown, and therefore you have to use something more similar to a panning technique. I also Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of oversaturation. The blue sky is nice, but it could be much better to have a couple of clouds for a FP. --Kadellar (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - excellent shot considering that the plane is at quite a distance and moving quickly; the colours look good, especially the resemblance to the Swedish flag (as apparently the pilot is a Swede); meets the other general requirements (license, 2+Mpx). Green Giant (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Oversaturated Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Daniel rule --LivioAndronico talk 19:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As others. With better sharpness it could have been something. Now I doubt it could be QP. -- Pofka (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Sun 17 May → Fri 22 May
Mon 18 May → Sat 23 May
Tue 19 May → Sun 24 May
Wed 20 May → Mon 25 May
Thu 21 May → Tue 26 May
Fri 22 May → Wed 27 May

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]

Wed 13 May → Fri 22 May
Thu 14 May → Sat 23 May
Fri 15 May → Sun 24 May
Sat 16 May → Mon 25 May
Sun 17 May → Tue 26 May
Mon 18 May → Wed 27 May
Tue 19 May → Thu 28 May
Wed 20 May → Fri 29 May
Thu 21 May → Sat 30 May
Fri 22 May → Sun 31 May

Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]

The bot[edit]

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure[edit]

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Featured picture}} or {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessements template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==

{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.

  1. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2015), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request[edit]

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2015.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.