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 | فارسی | 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:Baltyk-1-8.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 20:25:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rewal beach during sunset. Special Area of Conservation "Trzebiatowsko-Kołobrzeski Pas Nadmorski".

File:Päikesetõus Pärnu jõel..jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 20:20:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunrise in Pärnu river

File:2012 Olbrachcice, Kościół Świętych Apostołów Piotra i Pawła 05.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 20:08:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of Saints Peter and Paul. Albrechtice, Moravian-Silesian Region, Czech Republic.
✓ Done New, better version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. Look at the upper left. Looks grey. There is undersaturation too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done --Halavar (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Very weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Better, but no much wow and quality isn't the best. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Conference 2015 photo by Pine - 28.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 19:22:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Colonnade of a palace in Germany

File:Wikimedia Conference 2015 photo by Pine - 12.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 19:17:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior courtyard of a palace in Germany

File:Wessel Couzijn (1980).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 15:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wessel Couzijn (1980)

File:"The good Shepherd" mosaic - Mausoleum of Galla Placidia.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 14:51:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"The good Shepherd" 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 "The good Shepherd" mosaic in mausoleum of Galla Placidia. UNESCO World heritage site. Ravenna, Italy. 5th century A.D. All by --Mile (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now this was a lowligth task. Handheld @ ISO 1600, 1/6 s, 32 mm. Full size, croped. Minor sharpening attached.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose symmetry, vignetting, sharpening --The Photographer (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Photographer symmetry: yes its off centre shot; vignetting: no its croped, cant see one (but you got confused by ligth distribution, check here). Sharpneing : too minor too see any atrefacts, so let me see where do you see problem. Mosaics are rare here, you are used to frescos etc, however those piece of stones are put into the wall and they wont be perfect planar, so many different reflections are to be seen. You got self confused here with "sharpening". Soo here are some other photos, too see what one migth think are sharpening atrefacts, these are very "orignal" i suppose no sharpening see here, and here. Pieces of mosaic wont be alligned perfectly into the wall, hence different reflextion of ligth...which some could easily misunderstood for "sharpening". As you did, Wilfredo. --Mile (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I understand your point about symmetry, however, my vote is mainly due to the general lack of quality, the picture is not entirely clear (or sharp), just 5-axis is not enough, I consider it necessary to use tripod and low ISO. --The Photographer (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tripods are forbidden there, as in many museums and i respect that. I try to find any similar size of it on Google, Flickr to show you that quality is more than good. Mosaic is as on photo, even in very good shape for 1500 years old. Eyes of Shepard look a bit strange, it is so in original, can be seen on other linked photos also. I see you did some homework, just finish it. You see EXIF, if you would like to have that DOF on your FF, you should go to ISO 6400. Then calculate IS for f rule ? None ? This tourist cam is called micro 4/3, you know Wilfredo they put 5-axis with reason, they exmaine rectal tract in medicine, and beleive me, you wouldnt like to hear for FF there without image stabilization. But look on the brigth side, it helped to deliver this mosaic. --Mile (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria in Monticelli (Rome) - interior.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 12:43:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Santa Maria in Monticelli (Rome) - interior

Santa Maria in Monticelli. A church was founded at the site in the 12th century and reconsecrated by Innocent II in 1143. It was known as Sancta Maria in Monticellis Arenulae de Urbe, in a bull by Urban IV in 1264. Little remains of the medieval church, except for the bell-tower. The church was entirely reconstructed in 1716 by Matteo Sassi, on a commission by Clement XI, and in 1860 by Francesco Azzurri. The church is the home to the Curia Generalizia dei Padri Dottrinari.All by -- LivioAndronico talk 12:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:경주 구황동 금제여래좌상.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 13:11:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Seated Golden Buddha from Guhwang-dong, Gyeongju

File:Bromo-Tengger-Semeru-National-Park Indonesia Horses-02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 08:59:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Java Pony (Equus ferus caballus) at Bromo Tengger Semeru National Park, East Java, Indonesia.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A Java Pony (Equus ferus caballus) at Bromo Tengger Semeru National Park, East Java, Indonesia. The Java pony is a breed of pony developed on the island of Java. It is a descendant from wild forebears of Mongolian Wild Horse ancestry.
    All by -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 08:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is the background fog? --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is fog. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition --The Photographer (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tigth crop. --Mile (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Background too greyish. --Tremonist (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Karrenseilbahn Bergstation-Restaurant Dornbirn 1.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 06:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cable-car: Karrenseilbahn in Dornbirn, Austria. Restaurant in the mountain station. c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice blue hour lighting and very detailed. However, I find the composition a bit unsettling; the dining room is cropped at an awkward place at the top right, and as for the fence below, I feel like it should serve more of a compositional purpose or should be omitted altogether. --King of ♠ 06:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you, you're right, but without a fence, the restaurant would be too much press. Thus, the image has a frame and acts more balanced. --Böhringer (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support totally works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support Totally per Martin Falbisoner. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dark but pleasantly looking. -- Pofka (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My critical comment: the bottom of the restaurant is almost in line with the horizon. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry to disagree about the fence. I find it too disturbing, and not helping to the composition at all. A no go for me, I'm afraid--Jebulon (talk) 11:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its something original, good IQ, but compo could be better, without the fence. --Mile (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think the fence is disturbing the pictures composition at all. Also I can follow Böhringer's explanation regarding this topic above. --Plani (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice creative photo but agree with negative opinions of the fence, I am not happy with crop the bottom part but I want just without the fence composition... --Laitche (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. It's slightly off symmetrical which is the most significant compositional issue for me. I agree the fence isn't ideal, but I don't think cropping it is a better solution. Diliff (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Slussen Stan May 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 05:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View from Slussen.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info South view from Slussen towards Riddarholmen, Stockholm. Created by ArildV (additional editing by User:MagentaGreen), uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ArildV (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Everything comes together so nicely in this picture. Normally I would complain about rule of thirds, but somehow the composition works here. --King of ♠ 06:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition doesnt work for me, i would crop some from above. Choped bus in bottom and bus which turns left dont help much. --Mile (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the special light lasted only a few minutes before it started raining again, it was no time to run home and pick up a tripod and no opportunity to come back another day. I was lucky that I had the camera in my bag. I used a railing as tripod and was unable to include more of the foreground (pointing the camera down had also given more distortion, its taken with extreme wide angle). I like the triangular shaped composition with Riddarholmen and the historic Riddarholm Church in the center. I think the sky is to beutiful to crop.--ArildV (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I dont get it, why tripod, is this a stitch ? --Mile (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, but long exposure 1/5 sec.--ArildV (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well 1/6 - 1/5 could be handheld shot, depend on f. You could put ISO to 800 not losing anything, benefiting in compostion. Camera is good FF. --Mile (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Higher ISO would affect the quality, even with the D600. Especially if you consider that this image has large contrasts between light and dark areas. It requires post-processing of the dark areas (shadows), a higher ISO had given a lot more noise in the dark areas. The lens has not particularly good corner sharpness at larger aperture, therefore f/8.--ArildV (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, I believe that it would have been a bad idea to pointing the camera down more. It would disturb other parts of the composition and provide more distortion, and the bus is not an essential part of the composition.--ArildV (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe you are rigth, lens are often a problem, i dont know which you used, i checked now sky, it gave you banding and posterization (see notes). --Mile (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Even when I stare at the images in full resolution (22 MP uncompressed wide-angle) its very difficult to see, I'm not even sure I can even see what you're talking about. Anyway, I do not think it is a big problem and the overall quality (especially if one takes into account the resolution) is above average for wide-angle-FP.--ArildV (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per King. --LB 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Even in 1280px I can see the posterizations in the sky otherwise it is a excellent shot. --Laitche (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Fine capture of a beautiful sunset at 8pm between Stockholm showers. --Pugilist (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Qualified support I don't mind the posterization since it's not the worst ever, far from it. But it does tend to point out how this might be better with more of the top cropped off. Stunning image otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Parelstuifzwam (Lycoperdon perlatum). Locatie, Hortus (Haren, Groningen) 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2015 at 05:03:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lycoperdon perlatum
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/ Fungi
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Lycoperdon perlatum (Lycoperdon perlatum). Location, Hortus (Haren, Groningen) created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a great image, probably valuable for WikiSpecies. --Tremonist (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me, great quality though. --LB 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great quality --LivioAndronico talk 19:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2015 Góry Złote z Borówkowej 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 21:25:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden Mountains (Sudetes), Poland, exposure from Borówkowa

File:Church of Santi Nereo e Achilleo.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 18:29:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of Santi Nereo e Achilleo
King of : The current Cardinal Priest of the Titulus Ss. Nerei et Achillei is Theodore Edgar McCarrick that came from your zone --LivioAndronico talk 19:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but strong magenta flare around the right pillar of the baldachin, close to the altar. Even visible at thumbnail. Not correctible I'm afraid--Jebulon (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Nice correction, I strike my oppose, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft in focus for me in the background at the top. I think you should have set the exposure time to 30 sec, and have chosen a suitable smaller aperture to get more DOF. Does not reach the current very high church interior bar. Do you have the new version 6 of Lightroom? I can recommend it as it has a builtin HDR merge, from which you can combine several exposures and get a "super-raw" with much more dynamic range (you can find a few of these in my recent uploads). I think it works very well and convenient with single frames (I still use PTGui for HDR panos) and would be suitable for these kinds of church interiors to get better results. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • With HDR of Photoshop or Lightroom is a disgusting, also do not have time, because you see these empty churches are full of tourists and also expect also two hours to find the time that there isn't people, and are usually a few moments --LivioAndronico talk 20:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Araucárias ao fundo Parque Nacional da Serra da Bocaina..jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 18:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Serra da Bocaina National Park
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good! --Ralf Roleček 20:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Amazing light! Excellent mood but too noisy, so pity! --Laitche (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ArionEstar: I am supporting that one before this, this photo's noise is too heavy... --Laitche (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Horses make it. --Mile (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am guessing when you removed vignetting worked with wrong color space since this image's color space is uncalibrated so I've changed the color space to sRGB with derivative work (alternative). --Laitche (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Serra da Bocaina National Park

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Denoised, reverted decreased saturation, removed dust spots. Processed from the first version. --Laitche (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as editor. --Laitche (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Laitche: Yes, it's better, but vignette at the right and left uppers. It's necessary to zoom much for see it. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
✓ Fixed --Laitche (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I Symbol support vote.svg Support now. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Roosa hommikuudu Tolkuse rabas.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 17:41:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tolkuse bog in Estonia
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by MKose - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Kruusamägi: Wow! Nice time! Almost like here. S2 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 17:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment English description please. --Laitche (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Kruusamägi (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question @Kruusamägi: Natural place or Natural phenomena? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a morning fog + sunrise and therefor it could just as well be classified as natural phenomena. I don't know what is more suitable category. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • If you like crepuscular rays, I think natural phenomena is suitable. (but not sure) --Laitche (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
      • If the subject of the photo is the bog, then it's better in Natural places, but if it's the sunrise, then it's better in Natural phenomena. As the subject of my photo above is the national park, it's better in Natural places. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--LivioAndronico talk 18:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ślimaczek (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 20:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice crepuscular rays, colours and reflections. noisy but acceptable for me. --Laitche (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. -- Pofka (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Paeonia rockii 2015 G1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 17:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rock's tree peony (Paeonia rockii)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is the flower revealing from a bud. The middle is still hidden partially by petals. The nature lives not according to a drawings for the sake of symmetry. I wanted to show freshness and awakening of this flower. This plant blossoms only few days, so new photos will be at next year. Anyway, thanks for the review. Smile -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality but no wow and busy background, many flowers show the best timing a few days in a year thus that is not the featured factor, imho. --Laitche (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per others. --Tremonist (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, no wow. --LB 16:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Harbour snowy mountains Rethymno Crete Greece.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 16:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sunny mediterranean harbour and snowy mountains in Rethymno, Crete, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Underexposed --The Photographer (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not too impressed with the lighting, and in terms of composition, I think the pier on the right is awkwardly placed. --King of ♠ 17:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per King of Hearts. --Tremonist (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI definitely, but no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Seal of Florida.svg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 13:19:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Seal of Florida

File:Neue Wache, Unter den Linden, Berlin-Mitte, Nacht (HDR).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 13:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Neue Wache (New Guardhouse) in Berlin-Mitte at night.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Neue Wache (New Guardhouse) in Berlin-Mitte at night. It was built from 1816 and 1818 according to plans of Karl Friedrich Schinkel. It is one of the main works of German classicism. HDR made of three exposures (1s; 2s; 4s; 8s; 15s at f/7,1 and ISO 250). As some of you know I'm obsessed with this building. I made hundreds of photographs of it and uploaded some of them to Commons. Now I think this one could be FP. What do you think? All by -- Code (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Code (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 13:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the WB might be a little too blue. --King of ♠ 17:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @King of Hearts: Thank you, I adjusted the white balance a little bit. --Code (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 19:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A bit fuzzy all over the image and this is HDR so it's a strange comment but too high dynamic range then I get kind of artificial feeling. --Laitche (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Laitche: Do you really think it looks artificial? I worked on this for hours to get a natural look, but maybe I looked at it for too long. You should come here and visit Berlin to see what it really looks like ;-) --Code (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Code: Yeah, I have never been Berlin, it's a night view but when I see around the bikes on the right side and the benches on the left side, it's just like the daytime of a sunny day. They say "More than enough is too much." but I won't oppose this :) --Laitche (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Laitche: It's not that I want to convince you but the brightness behind the building on the right side comes from some very bright street lamps and from the illumination of the other building on the right ("Zeughaus"). Thanks to HDR I could reduce the brightness there to an acceptable level, normally this part would have been completely blown. --Code (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I am understanding it's a normal because of HDR but I want (and I hope) HDR should be like a this kind of light :) --Laitche (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Heldervue Somerset West.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 08:38:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Heldervue (meaning "clear view") is suburb in Somerset West which is a town in the Western Cape, South Africa. It is situated in the Helderberg area (formerly called Hottentots Holland), about 50 kilometres east of Cape Town central city area, and 10 kilometres from Strand. The town is overlooked by the Helderberg (meaning "clear mountain").
Thanks for pointing that out, mistakenly put the phenomena cat instead of the places one. Still not 100% sure which cat would be best. Cityscapes or mountains?--Discott (talk) 11:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Cityscapes is IMO ok, D kuba (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Oversaturated. --Kadellar (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice view but oversaturated, overexposed or over-processing. Sorry. --Laitche (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose übersättigt, zu stark bearbeitet. --Ralf Roleček 20:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @SkyPixels: Could you see if you can reprocess the file with less saturation, and add it as an alt below? --King of ♠ 21:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overprocessed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, sorry. --Tremonist (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @ King of Hearts - I have added the original, before any post edit. is it better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyPixels (talk • contribs) 08:03, 26 May 2015‎ (UTC)
    Better. But see Daniel's comment below - if you shot this in raw, you might be able to recover the highlights. --King of ♠ 00:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Striking composition, but overprocessing left blown highlights not only on clouds but houses below. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Strand Beach Road at Dusk.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 08:31:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Strand Beach Road, Cape Town at Dusk, is a popular beach front walking area in the northern part of Cape Town.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by SkyPixels - uploaded by SkyPixels - nominated by Discott -- Discott (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Discott (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I love the view in this one and actually was planning to support this nomination at first. Though, I doubt if the quality is high enough. Pixels are visible even on the closest buildings. Picture captured by Christian Ferrer (below this nomination) has MUCH better quality with similar cityscape. -- Pofka (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Pofka. --Tremonist (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Sète from Mount Saint-Clair by night 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2015 at 06:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sète from Mount Saint-Clair, France
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 12:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 17:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 17:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice time! Clin 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very detailed nice view. --Laitche (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 20:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 05:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Scenery isn't that striking. But it was captured in fine detail from front to back with very minimal light posterization. Most of us know how difficult this can be with even larger, more photographically inviting night cityscapes. So the technical accomplishment more than makes up the difference. Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kodak BW 2015-02-18 20-07-15.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 15:00:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shadow goes inwards (bad positioned ligth ?), also camera could be tunred little bit to recth, to see front plane better. --Mile (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kodak of 1902.....good quality....for me is good. The shadow is not disturb for me --LivioAndronico talk 19:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the Shadow is ok. Maybe, right a bit crop? And a little bit more light? But its good for FP to me. --Ralf Roleček 21:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm missing an extra main front light, sorry. --Kadellar (talk) 11:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment [Edit conflict: per Kadellar, pretty much] I really think the front could be a little brighter, this should be relatively simple to correct. It's your choice of course. — Julian H. 11:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Front is too dark for me. Supporting surface could be better cleaned. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Cervo do Pantano Perfil.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 14:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Close-up of a marsh deer (Blastocerus dichotomus) in Itirapina, São Paulo state, Brazil.
The marsh deer is the largest deer species from South America reaching a length of 2 m (6.6 ft) and a shoulder height of 1.2 m (3.9 ft). It is found in Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay. Formerly found in much of tropical and subtropical South America, it ranged east of the Andes, south from the Amazon rainforest, west of the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest and north of the Argentinian Pampa. Today it is largely reduced to isolated populations at marsh and lagoon zones in the Paraná, Paraguay, Araguaia and Guapore river basins. Created and uploaded by Jonathan Wilkins - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Paneles solares en Cariñena, España, 2015-01-08, DD 09-12 PAN.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 14:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the photovoltaic power station of Cariñena, Zaragoza, Spain. The panels are mounted on dual axis trackers in order to maximise the intensity of incoming direct radiation. This solution enables the arrays to track the sun in its daily orbit.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Industry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panoramic view of the photovoltaic power station of Cariñena, Zaragoza, Spain. The panels are mounted on dual axis trackers in order to maximise the intensity of incoming direct radiation. This solution enables the arrays to track the sun in its daily orbit. Poco2 14:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 14:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition. --Kadellar (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition, nice light, nice sky but bad news... stitching errors. --Laitche (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC) fixed. --Laitche (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I suggest litle +contrast and move curve a bit down, its better. Now too brigth. This would be Sci-Fi photo without that tree. --Mile (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good and as already mentioned very futuristic - looks more like artwork than a photovoltaic power station. I found a another stitching error (see note) but I am sure Diego will fix it soon. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
✓ New version uploaded adressing all issues mentioned here (also yours Iifar) Poco2 17:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stitching errors are fixed but moiré appear instead... --Laitche (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC) disappeared. --Laitche (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Moiré gone, thanks! Poco2 18:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I Love this original things,good quality too --LivioAndronico talk 19:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though a bit hazier than I would have liked. --King of ♠ 04:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure if there is a caching problem, but I see a very strong stitching problem with the fence post on the right side. — Julian H. 10:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, the fences are disappearing or appearing. --Laitche (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oops, how could I miss that? I tried some editing but finally came to the conclusion that the best I can do with the fence is getting rid of it, at least in the middle. Therefore I cropped it and did some minor editing Poco2 14:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Better. :) A weak Symbol support vote.svg Support from me then, because the place really is very cool but the clipping in the middle is quite large in area. — Julian H. 14:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great idea and composition, perfect lighting, reasonable quality. Pity for the CA on the fenceposts to the left. --Kreuzschnabel 17:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ CA gone, that was easy Poco2 17:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image has huge wow. There is a CA on the fence poles to the left, but it is acceptable for me given the large resolution. I am a little confused about the horizontal angle of view. Could you please indicate that on the file page. A geolocation would also be helpful for understanding better the layout of the solar power plant.-- Slaunger (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    Slaunger: ✓ Done It looks like I uploaded the wrong version, the version uploaded now is free of CA. I also added the geodata Poco2 22:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks, and I double-checked; it really is gone nowSmile. One thing that puzzles me is why the center panel is horizontally aligned? Is it malfunctioning or under service? Do you know? It gives a striking effect and adds a lot to the wow for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:15-05-23-Berlin-Sachsendamm-Tesla-RalfR-N3S 7354.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 12:50:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tesla Roadster; Breakdown on the highway
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Ralf Roleček
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ralf Roleček 12:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice impression. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please add an other license. Only the "GFDL 1.2 only" license isn't enough. New FPC rule. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, a good idea and a good capture! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice. Ich frage mich, warum du dort mit dem Stativ warst haha. --Kadellar (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Ohne Stativ, Brückengeländer und 4 unscharfe Versuche --Ralf Roleček 14:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting shot and composition but it looks a bit loss details, maybe with f/22? --Laitche (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 00:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. But I ask—what is the message being sent by this picture? That you shouldn't buy a Tesla because it will break down and you'll be stuck on the side of the road while traffic zooms by? Face-smile.svg Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very intriguing shot. --King of ♠ 04:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm slightly concerned regarding the legal situation of this photo. Based on which interpretation do you regard this as being ok? — Julian H. 10:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Was meinst du? Die Person ist Beiwerk, Nummernschilder brauchen nicht verpixelt werden. --Ralf Roleček 11:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Ich hätte hier stark bezweifelt, dass man sie als Beiwerk bezeichnen kann, aber ich bin natürlich diesbezüglich gar kein Experte. — Julian H. 11:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Edit: siehe z.B. hier. — Julian H. 11:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
        • "..daß sie auch entfallen könnten, ohne daß Inhalt und Charakter des Bildes sich veränderten.." ist schon lange gelebter Konsens bei deutschen Gerichten. --Ralf Roleček 12:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 11:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A photograph that leaves the viewer slightly puzzled. I am still annoyed that I find it difficult to see the idea behind the composition - but I prefer "annoying" photos that are able to attract my interest. --Pugilist (talk) 11:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice idea and captured but sorry how many times I look at this, the details are lost I guess that with f/22 (this problem). --Laitche (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! --Code (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another very good idea, and achievement, for RR.--Jebulon (talk) 19:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good timing with the cars passing by and excellent idea. Eyecatching, and it can serve as an illustration for many kinds of subjects. The motion blur on the passing car naturally draws the attention to the red Tesla and the young lady. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good idea, nice capture. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good photo --Qian.Nivan (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For originality Poco2 13:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Poco a Poco. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Tuxyso.--ArildV (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gildir (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Klensmedjan Horndal May 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 07:43:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horndal iron works.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The blacksmith shop ("klensmedja") of Horndals bruk, Avesta Municipality, Sweden. Tools used in the Lancashire forge of Horndals bruk or the foundry were probably repaired in this workshop. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems there is danger at the camera location. Your life is more important than FP! --Laitche (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is true but it is not a big house, it is possible to shoot from the doorpost.--ArildV (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting subject and very well done. --Code (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral In thumb I was pretty convinced it would end out with an oppose from me as I find the crop vertically unbalanced (too little below, too much above) and it seemed too dark. However, in full view it is a rather well done photo with many details, good light despite the many dark areas of an usual subject recalling us that "valuable is not always beautiful". -- Slaunger (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 10:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This composition is too smart for this subject. I hope you to get what this comment means. --Laitche (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Destruction never looked so good. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Xian China Cultural-Performance-02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2015 at 05:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Xian, China: Cultural show
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cccefalon - uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 05:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Bojars (talk) 06:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment WB is really off. --Mile (talk) 06:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I get the same impression. They must have used some really yellow stage lights. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Maire (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO it needs a WB correction. It's to me so yellowish, that it gets disturbing Poco2 12:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose White balance is off. It should have been corrected before nomination in FPC.--Jebulon (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Jebulon, you forgot to sign Poco2 17:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, thank you. Done now.--Jebulon (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon, I'm aware the lighting was probably colored and it helps to preserve a bit of it but this is still too much. --King of ♠ 20:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I commented on the coloured light on my talk page --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone's looking for their white shirts to be pure white. But if the yellows were a little less overwhelming... — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I read explanation for ligths and WB, but i have my opinion. There is no camera which would handle WB correct at such "extreme" temperature. Especially when set on Auto white balance. Unless you made calibration with color cards (which doeasnt look like). This and choped hands of woman in rigth. --Mile (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. I did try to lower T and it looks little better, i think from RAW could be even better.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, regarding the white balance. It doesn't have to be perfectly neutral in such a case, but too much of the actual variation in colour seems to have been lost here. — Julian H. 11:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The colours are too strange. --Tremonist (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Colours and WB are not a problem for me. Good photo! --Halavar (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Texelgruppe Hohe Wilde 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 21:20:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View on Hochwilde (3480m), a mountain of the Ötztal Alps photographed from a trail near Lazinser Alm inside the Texelgruppe Nature Park
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View on Hochwilde (3480m), a mountain of the Ötztal Alps photographed from a trail near Lazinser Alm inside the Texelgruppe Nature Park
    all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good composition, though lighting could be better. --King of ♠ 21:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What had been better light for you here, King of Hearts? The creek and mountain are in sunlight, the trees at the left are partly in shadow which is imho a good contrast to the bright and snowy mountain. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • It's a bit flat, an unavoidable consequence of shooting at noon. Granted, it might be the best possible light for this scene (as sunrise/sunset could create unwanted shadows) which is why I still supported, but not particularly inspiring in an absolute sense. The composition and contrasting colors are what I like about this image. --King of ♠ 05:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As already mentioned, the flat lighting. Personally, the image doesn't bring any wow for me, it's a pretty common sight. Sorry, but I can't see this as FP in any way. --LB 08:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment LB, I tried to capture the beauty of that place. I like the place and think I've chosen I good composition to transport that beauty. For me it is far from being a "common sight". I cannot say if a different shooting time had been better but the valley is quite narrow thus I think you will have distracting shadows, as King of Hearts has mentioned. BTW: A comment "does not bringing any wow for me" is not really appreciating. You should keep in mind that most of us spend a lot of time to produce nice photos. IMHO it is better to stay factual rather emphasizing two times that you cannot imagine why this [bad photo] should be an FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Tuxyso, what do you regard as a "factual" review? Dust spots and chroma noise pixel peeping? FP requires an emotional response to an image, "wow", and a failure to deliver that to a reviewer is just important a flaw as any other subjective opinion on composition or lighting. I think "I can't see this as FP in any way" is too strong/rude considering this is far from being FPX. -- Colin (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Colin, I can say what is imho no deliberative (better word) review: Writing two times that an photo is no FP in any manner as LC did. It is absolutely OK to write: The images has no wow for me. Assessing FPCs is always subjective and not fully factual. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Tuxyso: I apologise for saying that I can't see this as FP in any way, I didn't mean to sound rude and I agree that it was too much. I do, however, stand to the statement that the image doesn't appeal to me. I do appreciate your work. --LB 11:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks, LB for the clarification. Everything is fine - the statement (mentioned once) is completely OK. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • {{o}}} Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as I said during the QI process. For me not good enough with sharpness, therefore not FP-quality. --Hubertl (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hubertl - you've reviewed a different image :) For me the photo is sharp enough - a lot of details are visible on the trees, wood in the foreground and on the mountain itself. --10:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are right, I am really sorry for my mistake. This one is better, even when I am not absolutely convinced for FP. Sorry. So I go to neutral. --Hubertl (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive composition. --Laitche (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another picture I wish I could say I had taken. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm also not comfortable with the light. The very bright snow opposing the very dark shadows leave very little range for everything in-between, and the colours are very muted as a result. — Julian H. 11:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Julian--LivioAndronico talk 16:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me it has wow and I think a reasonable tradeoff has been made regarding the light, presence of shadows and time of day. I almost feel I can sense the fresh air and hear the stream of fresh water coming down. It is a little soft in focus in the upper right corner, but OK for me. I like the diagonal coming down from that corner. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting is not the best, but acceptable in my opinion. The main issue I see here is the composition. The cropped fence is a minus and the square format is IMHO not helping to get into the picture. A protrait format from a bit further to the right (without fence) and closer to the river, could have worked better (not sure, because I don't know the spot). I mean something like this. Poco2 13:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Hehe, Poco_a_poco, photos are a very subjective matter. The composition is the aspect I like most (and most of the supporters) with this photo and was for me besides the beauty of the place the reason for nomination. Every element (also the cropped fence) is there on purpose. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I usually don't like this aspect ratio but I can feel the depth in this composition especially the combination of a creek and a path plus this angle are excellent, seems very narrow valley so this sky is acceptable as well. --Laitche (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mount Ida chain Messara plain from Phaistos Crete Greece.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 15:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mount Ida chain and Messara plain from Phaistos
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Messara plain and the Mount Ida Chain, where Zeus was born, as seen from the archaeological site of Phaistos, Crete, Greece, february 2015.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support The kind of landscape I'm always hoping to be able to take and upload myself. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry very parts unsharps and don't understand what is the subject--LivioAndronico talk 09:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The subject is a landscape. Sharp enough for me.--Jebulon (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me the composition is unbalanced; some of the sky at the top can be cropped off. --King of ♠ 10:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Great, thanks. --King of ♠ 14:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 12:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice landscape and very nice clouds, a bit hazy but acceptable for me. --Laitche (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The landscape obviously has a lot of three-dimensional variation and depth, but the flat light hides all of that. There are still a few nice patterns, but I personally don't see a fp-level landscape, sorry. — Julian H. 10:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is sharp. Many other landscape and monument pictures get support here being much softer. I have suggested a crop, per King of Hearts. --Kadellar (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nice -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Kadellar:, @King of Hearts:, I've followed your suggestion, and cropped out a part of the sky. I hope other voters will agree, I don't think it is an "alternative". Everybody disagreeing,(or agreeing now) can change their vote, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 06:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is indeed a nice view and those fields of aligned trees really do have potential to draw the eye ideally to the nice mountains in the back, but they don't. Colors and light are nice but as said the composition is not balanced IMHO and the detail is not the best, either, sorry Jebulon. Poco2 13:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
    • No need to be sorry neither hypocrite, Poco.--Jebulon (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for presuming bad faith Jebulon, ...I used to have a good opinion of yours. Poco2 20:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is fine for me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful landscape! --Halavar (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Leo Tolstoy 1897, black and white, 37767u.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 14:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leo Tolstoy, 1897
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by F. W. Taylor (?), restored, uploaded, and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The best picture we have of Leo Tolstoy, along with File:L.N.Tolstoy Prokudin-Gorsky.jpg, and probably one of the best which exists. -- Yann (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Actually, I don't know who should be credited as Author. The LoC says that F. W. Taylor claimed a copyright, but I doubt he is the photographer of this picture. Yann (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why black and white ? The original was deliberately sepia ! --Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Well, not sepia, but rosy. And I don't think it was deliberate. Yann (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Historic and valued. --Mile (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can't oppose him --LivioAndronico talk 09:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good job, D kuba (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is not the best, but acceptable. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Per my !vote on the English Wikipedia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 06:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Picunda, Sobór św. Andrzeja (03).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 13:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St. Andrew the Apostle Cathedral in Pitsunda, Gagra District, Abkhazia.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just a QI for me, sorry. --King of ♠ 10:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For a "clean" exterior building shot, I would expect (probably per King) either great light or some other feature like unusually high resolution or a special composition to make it more than a good QI. — Julian H. 10:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Julian. --Laitche (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. Just QP. -- Pofka (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Lion d'Afrique.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 12:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Clément Bardot - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice portrait! --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree, very nice! --Halavar (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Clément Bardot: what kind of shot is it? zoo or wild animal? Poco2 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Why this question ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • It is a nice portrait, quality is good and lighting is great. The crop is though pretty tight, that is why I was wondering whether it is a zoo shot where you have no problem to take 50 pictures (animals are used to people) and choose the best one or in a safari where it is sometimes tricky to get such a good picture? Poco2 12:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • And this may have an influence on your vote ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Does only the result count? I provide as much information as possible of my pictures when I nominate here. I don't expect that from others but in cases like this I'd really appreciate to know whether this animal is captive and stands like this in front of the zoo visitors for hours or is a lucky strike in a safari. What is the problem with that?. Clément Bardot can you please, give a hint about this picture? thanks, Poco2 18:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • No, dear Poco, there is no problem for me with that, and, yes, "don't hide behind your finger" as we say in french, only the result count (a pity, I agree). I try too to provide as much infos as possible when I upload - not only nominate in FPC - here in Commons.--Jebulon (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 21:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But some information, where the photo was taken, would be useful --Llez (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support :—< 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Better description and location are needed and useful. --Kadellar (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good light, nice expression of the lion. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous. -- Pofka (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good --Qian.Nivan (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Krause Glucke Sparassis crispa.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 10:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fungi Sparassis crispa, Family: Sparassidaceae, Location: Germany, Erbach

File:Going am Wilden Kaiser Panorama 2011-01-29.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 May 2015 at 09:26:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wilden Kaiser Panorama
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created &- uploaded by Bernie Kohl - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support A bit overexposed but simply nice. --Laitche (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Beautiful landscape, but especially the summits are blurred. --Tremonist (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Don't see any overexposure. Beautiful, clear, pro --LC-de (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support although the mountains are a bit soft --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 19:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. Perfect scene.--LB 19:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good picture and I love this place. --Code (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Lovely snow. I don't like the rounded horizon, but I accept it as a result of the wideness of the panorama. --King of ♠ 10:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Moderate support per Laitche. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very nice scenery, nonetheless slight overexposure / detail loss on the snowy areas and relatively soft. This pano in the high end quality as the winterscapes of Böhringer had been perfect. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Without a doubt very nice, but too bright in my opinion. — Julian H. 10:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support darken would be no problem - the photo is otherwise very good --Böhringer (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Slaunger - uploaded by Slaunger - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent work, beautiful light. I like the silence of the photo - everything seems to be at the right place and rests in itself. -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The sky is too diffused. And what are the shadows in front? --Tremonist (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review, Tremonist. The shadows in the front are from recently pruned trees in the low hanging morning sun, similar to what you see in the background at the sides. The school is surrounded with such trees. Personally, I think they help guide the eye towards the main subject, but that is of course a matter of taste. I do not quite understand your comment about the diffuse sky, I am afraid. I think it is rather visually attractive. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your comment and for the explanation. There are too many pixels visible in the clouds I think. --Tremonist (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for this nomination, Tuxyso! -- Slaunger (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the goemetry does it -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Both sides are leaning in Poco2 19:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Poco a poco: Well spotted! I also noticed some dust spots, which are best removed from the source images in Lightroom prior to export to PTGui. I think I will rework the whole thing, and add some vertical control lines. Hold on, processing... -- Slaunger (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
      • ✓ Done. Poco a poco: Perspective corrected, dust spot removed. Tremonist: Look again: I have remorked the sky a bit. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 12:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks, too! Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Splendid --LivioAndronico talk 09:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. I spotted a little moire, that should be simple to remove with your brush. -- Colin (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Colin: ✓ Done Well spotted and thanks for the advice. I have never tried to fix Moiré patterns before with the adjustment brush in Lightroom, but that worked like a charm. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These black lines on the grass are way too distracting. The quality and resolution is great. But not the timing of the shot. Sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A little too dark for me. --King of ♠ 19:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mausoleum of Galla Placidia ceiling mosaics.jpg, featured[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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 19:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unless this image's colours fall well outside sRGB, could you please save your RAW as sRGB for upload to the internet. Using AdobeRGB is highly likely to cause others to see the wrong colours and extremely likely to not notice any improvement anyway. -- Colin (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done You are right Colin, i didnt notice, colors are more original now. Camera was set so by default, didnt check that since was new. Thanx. --Mile (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:14 05 2015 Gomphus pulchellus Keiljungfer 05.jpg, featured[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
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I guess a bit overprocessing (and also maybe downsized too much but I'm not certain.) plus that brown lines(sprigs? stalks?) in background are a bit distracting, but in any case it's a nice photo. --Laitche (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 10:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One second exposure? Jee 16:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The dragonfly just molted from the nymph state and couldn't move much because the wings needed to dry. The perfect moment for a longer exposure with iso100. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the info. Good observation too. Jee 10:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 19:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bzzzzzz… 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Brilliant. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 14:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great work. — Julian H. 10:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely shades of green and yellow; DoF just right. Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

Rotring Technical Pens by Lucasbosch[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.

Rotring Isograph 0.35mm technical pen
Rotring Rapidograph 0.35mm technical pen
ISO line widths and color codes, illustrated with Rotring Rapidograph technical pens

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is a set nomination consisting of four SVG vector image files. The first one shows the technical pens disassembled, image 2 and 3 show them being assembled and the last one shows the full range of line widths available, and their standardized color codes. The two pen versions shown (Isograph and Rapidograph) are the two main product lines by the Rotring brand. All by LB -- LB 16:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LB 16:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Don't you have a version with more resolution? Poco2 18:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Poco It's a SVG, a vector graphic :) --Laitche (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC) should not open it as PNG. --Laitche (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
    Oops, you are right. Actually I thought that it was for real! you got my Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 19:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small for me --LivioAndronico talk 19:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment LivioAndronico just open it normaly and press CTRL + how much you want to...it wont lose resolution since vector graphic. --Mile (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
Infinitely? isn't true.--LivioAndronico talk 10:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
That infinitely means you can see the more details in larger images (loss details) but those are not smooth because you can see kinda path (like this) of vector graphics and Bézier curve in larger images, but it's actually infinite at times, that depends on the way of making. --Laitche (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@LB If my comment is wrong, please remark. --Laitche (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, that looks extremely realistic to me. --El Grafo (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't understand the composition. Is it a set ? a picture ? Why the series ? Why individuals ? It lacks of clarification to me.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jebulon: It's a set nomination consisting of four SVG vector image files (your comment reads as if you think it's all one file). The first one shows the technical pens disassembled, image 2 and 3 show them being assembled and the last one shows the full range of line widths available, and their standardized color codes. The two pen versions shown (Isograph and Rapidograph) are the two main product lines by the Rotring brand. I hope you will reconsider your vote. --LB 20:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for pinging me. I know and understand what I see, my concern is about the "set" nomination. It is a very impressive work, by the way. --Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
        • @Jebulon: Set nominations are okay by the FP nomination rules, and this set can be seen as a "group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object." (see set nomination rules, category 4). The class of object is technical pens currently sold under the Rotring brand, all possible variations are both Rapidograph and Isograph pens and the extra images showing them disassembled and the color codes (and different nib sizes) are for illustrative purposes. --LB 21:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This clear explanation makes sense, I strike my oppose, and I think that such a quality job deserves a support. btw, I'm the proud owner of two FP sets...Smile--Jebulon (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice work. — Julian H. 10:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really a great (and very nice) work! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:59, 24 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: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)
Yes it is, but I still doubt it might be FP. Staying with neutral position though. -- Pofka (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral nice image and very nice light however, the composition lack of something, maybe too much of rock on the right. Pictogram voting question.svg Question what is the thing at bottom left, a sculpted rock? -- Christian Ferrer 11:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit random, and the near bush seems to dominate in an unattractive way. -- Colin (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Technically very good. I'm also not too pleased with the foreground though - one of those greener bushes could have possibly made a nicer foreground element. Hard to say of course if the actual composition would have worked better. — Julian H. 10:26, 24 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alchemist --LC-de (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gildir (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Encyclopedic interest, very limited. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Archaeodontosaurus, there's no requirement for any image on Commons, nor any featured image on Commons, to have "Encyclopedic interest". That's not the definition of "educational" that we use here. And it is wrong anyway, since the image is in use on Wikipedia, which is more than can be said for many Featured Pictures. To be "educational", the image doesn't have to be a source of information itself, but may help one think about a subject while reading about it. -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note I did not say she was no sense in what I said was little. I warned the community about promoting this kind of image can be produced in two clicks. We could have quickly large amounts of image such that it will judge in various competitions. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I find your reply very difficult to understand, but I'd like to say that I don't think it matters whether it was difficult to produce or not. What matters is whether it's a useful or educational and of good technical quality. Some great FPs are trivially easy to photograph, some are extremely difficult technical accomplishments. Also, as Colin said, when it comes to usefulness, whether you think it's interesting isn't really the point. I think we (as reviewers) need to think beyond our personal interests and consider whether it could be useful or interesting to others too. Of course our personal interests will factor into how we judge images and it is impossible to completely separate that, but the more objective we can be, the better reviewers we will be. Diliff (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Archaeodontosaurus, we don't care if "no" or "little" "Encyclopaedic interest". It is irrelevant to the question of FP on Commons, and that's not just my opinion, it's our whole ethos at Commons FP which you should know. Encyclopaedic matters on Wikipedia FP only. Some people take "specimen" photos, as you do, and they are valuable and encyclopaedic, but many many other featured pictures on Commons are never destined to appear on Wikipedia nor any other encyclopaedia. Please do not confuse "Encyclopaedic" with "Educational", and for the latter, Commons has an extremely broad interpretation, which includes exploding light bulbs, hazy bridges obscured by rain drops, and lovers caught in a storm.
I find your "two clicks" comment insulting and ignorant. This image was not the result of going out one morning and getting lucky when I dropped my camera; perhaps fortune smiles on you that way. This is the third Spring where I've experimented with ICM in bluebell woods, which are at their best for only about one or two weeks a year. It's a particularly low-success-rate endeavour, and one that requires tweaking the exposure, focal length and focus to get the best results, and trying a variety of locations, angles and lighting conditions. I've taken many dozens of photographs before reaching one I'm happy with. And I spent quality time post-processing this as I do for all my images on Commons. So on one measure, this photo has taken me three years, not "two clicks". Go ahead and mock that if you like; it seems others want to. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sad to be misspoke. I know your work I really admire. All what you told me, consernant your image, I believe without a doubt. My only message is to draw attention to the risk of seeing our contests invaded by images in two clicks. For cons, I continue to argue that we are primarily in the service of various encyclopedias --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. -- Colin (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I state that all my FP are used in various items of wikipedia and 90% my QI also. But I think your phrase was very unhappy. As said Oscar Wilde :"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."--LivioAndronico talk 09:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I thought a long time, creative work is a multimedia as useful as an other, I'm very favorable to explore different techniques of photography or edition. I strongly agree with Archaeodontosaurus on the fact we are in the service of various encyclopedias, this is why I give my support here. Explorations of the technical and artistic possibilities of our cameras or hardwares have a big encyclopedic value from my point of view, as well as programing languages or as other knowledges. I support the pleasant image, the technique and the gait... -- Christian Ferrer 20:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank-you for your considered response.-- Colin (talk) 21:45, 24 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but noise and I don't like the composition --LivioAndronico talk 11:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Of course it is a very tough task to depict an example of camouflage as you might want to show the subject and how it merges with the background - two contradictory requirements. But frankly, the picture here is not an example of a camouflaged animal. The reason why you don't see the croc clearly is just a combination of disturbing reflections with a somewhat unhappy composition. --LC-de (talk) 12:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the camouflaged reflections and the fact he is approaching the viewer. -- Colin (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I generally try not to “explain” my photographs, but I think it is appropriate in this case. First of all, mangroves offer difficult light conditions. Most pictures of mangroves are taken from the outside looking in, but the view stops at the edge of the mangroves, and seldom ventures in. This is due to the thick foilage that makes it difficult to see far into it. Once inside the mangrove, depending on the day, light seeps in and gives a very spoty look inside, with patches of light next to patches of shadows with a great differential in exposure values, basically photographing small sunlit areas next to shadow areas, and thus making overal light conditions terrible. As just as light seeps in, the reflections of the canopy make a very confusing scene, visually speaking. Reflections everywhere, sunlight coming in small ray like patterns, etc. See here #REDIRECT[[2]] and here #REDIRECT[[3]] and here #REDIRECT[[4]]. When the water is still, it acts as a mirror to a very complex scene, and it is hard to distinguish the real thing from the reflection.
Now to the crocs… When taken in lazy mode, that is, the crocs sunbathing, it is very easy to distinguish them in their environment, and this type of picture give una a good idea of the physiognomy, but not necesarily of their adaptive characteristics or their ability to blend into a scene. See here #REDIRECT[[5]] and here #REDIRECT[[6]].
Now, if we take a close look at the “design” of the crock skin, we see a camouflage pattern on the Surface, and further out, the texture of the skin give the crocs a different type of taxture base camoflage. Se here #REDIRECT[[7]] and here #REDIRECT[[8]]
So between the skin pattern and the texture pattern added to the reflections and to the choppy waters, the crocs blend in beautifully giving them a survival advantage or a hunting advantage. See here #REDIRECT[[9]], and here #REDIRECT[[10]]
Interistingly, when waters are still, the crocs laying still, just beneath the water, resemble logs floating around. See here #REDIRECT[[11]] and here #REDIRECT[[12]]
So, with all that, this picture is not a picture of a croc only, it is a picture of an environment that shows the blending in of a croc in that environment.
--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is an interesting, and possibly a useful photo. The visual appeal is very limited though, and I would expect more of that for a featured picture. — Julian H. 10:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Julian, sorry. Interesting and useful but no wow for me. --Kreuzschnabel 17:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For Julian --Σπάρτακος (talk) 11:07, 25 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just a comment about the suggested lack of quality: the scenery shows the irish sea during a storm in late winter not the calm sunlit mediterranian sea in the summer. --Dirtsc (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gildir (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality. 1/200 f/13 ? --· Favalli ⟡ 00:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great scene, very questionable aperature choice and lost potential in editing. As a result, the quality is not at a featured picture level, even for an action shot in bad weather. — Julian H. 10:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting scene but too poor quality (chroma noise everywhere) --Kreuzschnabel 17:24, 24 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.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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Btw, what’s the thing at the center of the bottom edge? Doesn’t look like part of the original photograph. --Kreuzschnabel 17:26, 24 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think the composition works well in a portrait orientation, with the action being horizontal and the upper background area having very strong contrast (and therefore drawing a lot of attention). — Julian H. 10:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ana is very attractive however I agree background (and bottom too) are disturbing. The cropped version is far much better from my point of view -- Christian Ferrer 21:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For Diliff --Σπάρτακος (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As before: Good capture: makes you want to investigate the image. -- Colin (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per King. — Julian H. 10:15, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For King --Σπάρτακος (talk) 11:04, 25 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose really interesting but the 1/3 left is a bit disturbing (harsh light, a bit blurred and distorted) -- Christian Ferrer 21:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For Christian Ferrer --Σπάρτακος (talk) 11:04, 25 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)
        • Thanks, Laitche and Diliff for your further observations. You are correct, Diliff about the posterization on the red soap tray as well. You are also correct, that I could have done better and used the equipment at hand more optimally by taking a 30 s exposure as well to get as much as possible out of the shadows. My technique is still good, I think, but improvable. Regarding the ISO, I should try that, although I do not share you optimism about how high I can go. I may go to ISO 200, but I really think my sensor is so noisy that I should not go higher. Yesterday, I worked on this HDR panorama where the scenary has less dynamic range to capture than in this interior. Here, I did not have to boost the shadows and dampen the highligts nearly as much in Lightroom, but still, I had to yank up the luminosity NR quite a bit to avoid too much noise in the sky at ISO 100 even after masking out sharpening in the sky. Well, but I should test this systematically. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Test my theory out then. :-) Take a photo that is overexposed at ISO 640 or ISO 800. Expose it so that the deep shadows of the scene are very bright, too bright to appear 'normal' but not too bright that they are actually blown. Then look at how much noise there is there. Then adjust the exposure in Lightroom so that the shadows look like normal shadows again. That's how much noise you'll have when you combine it into an HDR tone mapped image. Then compare it to a 'normal' image at ISO 100 with pushed shadows. The overexposed high ISO image will probably 'win' the noise competition against ISO 100. Normally this wouldn't be a useful method because exposing 'to the right' (of the histogram) would normally result in far too many blown details elsewhere in the scene, but it doesn't happen in an HDR image because you have other bracketed images to rescue the highlights from instead. The ISO level is almost arbitrary. What matters more is that you've 'exposed to the right' so that the details you want to capture in each bracket (highlights, mid tones and shadows) are in the upper end of the histogram. Diliff (talk) 16:36, 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 11:02, 25 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strange, very attractive, never seen for me. Many questions in this picture, nice sharpness, good light and shadows... Wonderful Nature ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 11:01, 25 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose or at least an outstanding composition or at least an outstanding quality, here both are ok but not enough featured -- Christian Ferrer 21:06, 24 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose It's not photographer's fault. The platform is curving to the right and the lampposts as well therefore I feel double vanishing point here and that is making an unbalanced composition, imho. --Laitche (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose For Laitche--Σπάρτακος (talk) 11:00, 25 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: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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with King of Hearts. --Halavar (talk) 13:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. 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)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support This picture is way too tight, Livio, this is an issue I see often in your pictures. Let your pictures breath! On the other side the quality is pretty good, probably the best one I have seen here among your works. I also agree with Diliff that that the bottom part (probably through brightening during processing) has little detail but it is IMO not so important for this composition Poco2 08:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 21:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Fri 22 May → Wed 27 May
Sat 23 May → Thu 28 May
Sun 24 May → Fri 29 May
Mon 25 May → Sat 30 May
Tue 26 May → Sun 31 May
Wed 27 May → Mon 01 Jun

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

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
Sat 23 May → Mon 01 Jun
Sun 24 May → Tue 02 Jun
Mon 25 May → Wed 03 Jun
Tue 26 May → Thu 04 Jun
Wed 27 May → Fri 05 Jun

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.