Commons:Featured picture candidates

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

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

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


Set nominations ONLY

Sets are temporarily disallowed for technical reasons; will reopen soon.

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}}

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:Stockholm Schärengarten.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 18:23:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Top of an island (Bergholmen) within the Stockholm archipelago in the early morning sun
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Top of an island within the Stockholm archipelago in the early morning sun. All by -- CHK46 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- CHK46 (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great lighting and colors, but sharpness is suboptimal. --King of ♠ 23:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
For your information, the picture has been assessed Quality Image.--CHK46 (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is acceptable for me; in print it wouldn't even be that noticeable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness isn't perfect but acceptable and the composition is good. Reminds me on some happy days in my youth. --Code (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Brasilia Eixo Monumental Nat Congress Ministries from TV Tower.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 18:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brasilia, capital of Brazil, as seen from Brasilia TV Tower: eastern part of Eixo Monumental (Monumental Axis), National Congress (two towers and two hemispheres) and ministries (in green on both sides) buildings.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Brasilia, capital of Brazil, as seen from Brasilia TV Tower: eastern part of Eixo Monumental (Monumental Axis), National Congress (two towers and two hemispheres) and ministries (in green on both sides) buildings. Created and uploaded by Cayambe - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, very grey sky, very busy and unpleasant photo, and this is not quite sharp ... -- RTA 06:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Potentially interesting subject but no wow (cropped buildings on both sides don't help). Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Marina City, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 01.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 16:28:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I think the new version is better. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi Paris 16, thanks for editing this file. I wonder though, why didn't you just ask me? I don't see the point in creating concurring versions, a new version would have been the easiest and leanest way to help the project, am I wrong?. Actually looking at your version, which is definitely better, I can upload a new version of the original file. Poco2 16:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Poco! This is a FP, so I think we need 7 {{Delist and replace}} before do something. After that, we can delete the new file.--Paris 16 (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
But this is an obvious but still not dramatical improvement! You have proven, showing a parallel version, that the vertical perspective correction was a bit overdone. I don't think that we need this process for such thing, since I cannot believe that a version without improvement could be the preferred one to somebody, but I'd like to hear other opitions. Poco2 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Poco. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
One more agreement from here. --Ximonic (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
per Poco --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:View from the Cup & Saucer Trail.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 15:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View from the Cup & Saucer Trail, Manitoulin Island, Canada.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by me -- Óðinn (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Óðinn (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excellent colors, but insufficient sharpness especially in the trees just below the wind turbines. --King of ♠ 16:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The King is right. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015 Lampa błyskowa pierścieniowa Aputure.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 10:30:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ring flash Aputure LED HALO HN100 for Nikon
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Decent image quality, but poor composition. The tangled cable could be avoided by positioning it outside your image. The cable from the ring unit would leave through the bottom border and re-enter through the image's left side. Given that you want to show an unmounted ring flash, I'd suggest to use a different camera angle or background colour to illustrate the unit's depth. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The black parts of the ring are blending in with the black background, you have to zoom in and look very closely to see where the ring ends and the background starts. --El Grafo (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Interior of Saka Tunggal Mosque, Banyumas, 2015-03-22.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 10:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of Saka Tunggal Mosque
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Crisco 1492. Edited by Diliff to remove some glare that I couldn't get. Saka Tunggal Mosque is a 140-year-old mosque in Cikakak, Banyumas. As evidenced from its design, it is a syncretic mix of Javanese Hindu and Islamic architecture. This image shows the central room, including the lone pillar that gives the mosque its name.--  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2009 G3.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 09:35:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION SHORT DESCRIPTION

See also
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Two FPs is too much. We need chose one. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist G3 -- Claus 09:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep different images ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As they are very similar I would have not promoted the both but now that they are... and none of the both harmed the reputation of the FP label IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 10:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Reynisfjara, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-17, DD 164.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 08:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Basalt sea stack in a black lava beach under the mountain Reynisfjall near the village Vík í Mýrdal, southern Iceland. The three basalt see stacks in the background are the famous Reynisdrangar.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Basalt sea stack in a black lava beach under the mountain Reynisfjall near the village Vík í Mýrdal, southern Iceland. The three basalt see stacks in the background are the famous Reynisdrangar. All by me, Poco2 08:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 08:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment need a crop.--Claus 09:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    Where? bottom? I thought about that what wanted to keep the reflexion of the rock in the water. Poco2 12:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support although the left bottom corner is a little bit disturbing. --Code (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, I decided to crop the bottom. New version uploaded. Poco2 13:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    Dann würde ich aber auch noch ein Stück rechts wegnehmen, damit der Stein wieder im goldenen Schnitt liegt. --Code (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco2 14:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Crop is better (don't like that outjutting rock in the original). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bold composition. --King of ♠ 05:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the rock doesn't work for me, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Hoist training 150219-G-CZ043-105.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 07:57:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

United States Coast Guards train at sea
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Petty Officer 3rd Class Dustin Williams (U.S.C.G.) - uploaded by - nominated by Ariadacapo -- Ariadacapo (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ariadacapo (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jumping Spider kamranki.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2015 at 05:15:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jumping Spider
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Straight out of the camera. Resized-down by about 20% and cropped a bit around the borders. Created by kamranki - uploaded by kamranki - nominated by kamranki -- Kamranki (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kamranki (talk) 05:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, D kuba (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The hind legs are out of focus. Focus stacking is often necessary for these kinds of shots. --King of ♠ 05:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Megachile montenegrensis female 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 20:18:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Megachile montenegrensis female 2.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gidip (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Are those white balls pollen? -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, the pollen of Malvaceae spp. is very large. Gidip (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 718smiley.svg Awesome! --LivioAndronico talk 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 06:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Picture is very good, but contrast and brighhtness is to low. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --· Favalli ⟡ 00:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- A very good image but yes, it lacks a bit of punch; contrast can be boosted a little I believe. Other than that, I also feel that the image is towards a "cooler" temperature; try "warming" up the white balance? -- Kamranki (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Meerkat (Suricata suricatta) Tswalu.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 15:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Meerkats at Tswalu in the Kalahari
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Charles (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Great composition and colors, but rather lacking in sharpness and image quality (e.g. color noise in the shadows). --King of ♠ 15:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I really like colors in this one. It actually looks like a painting. Though, I think the left side should be a little bit cropped. Or maybe not... Not sure. The quality could also be a little bit higher, but just because of the colors I choose WS over the WO. Just set it as my desktop wallpaper. These creatures are just lovely. -- Pofka (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition and colors are perfect. The animals are sharp enough. The noise is not so bad IMO. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bojars (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support per King. At thumbnail this is gorgeous, but the critters faces are somewhat soft at full size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice colors but shallow DOF and tigth crop. --Mile (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Yann - beautiful light and subjects. Slightly soft at full size, but not enough to be a problem. --Baresi F (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Danish West Indies 1904 10 Daler.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 14:02:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Danish West Indian 10 daler gold coin (1904) depicting Christian IX of Denmark
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by National Museum of American History, uploaded by Godot13, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Danish West Indian 10 daler gold coin (1904) depicting Christian IX of Denmark.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The most amazing picture of a coin I have seen in a long time. -- Yann (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very strong nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very clear image --Charles (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Details! -- Pofka (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bojars (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Godot13 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 07:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nice and sharp. -- Kamranki (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really clear and sharp. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --· Favalli ⟡ 00:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Fish for sale at Tsukiji Fishmarket, Tokyo-30.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 11:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even better if someone can identify the fish --Charles (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The colors are reproduced just brilliantly. -- Pofka (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the nom. I think they may be a type of red snapper, but I was not sure enough of the species identification to add that to the page. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Retama March 2015-1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 11:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A Bridal veil broom (Retama monosperma) fully flowered, taken in Tróia Peninsula, Portugal. This is one of those cases where I have no idea of what the reaction of the reviewers will be. I was really impressed by the beauty of this shrub when I took the photo. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 11:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Playa Paraíso, Villajoyosa, España, 2014-07-03, DD 01-02 PAN.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 11:08:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of Paraíso ("Paradise") Beach in Villajoyosa (Valencian Community) at the Mediterranean Sea, Spain.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panoramic view of Paraíso ("Paradise") Beach in Villajoyosa (Valencian Community) at the Mediterranean Sea, Spain. Poco2 11:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 11:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I feel like everything is too bright overall. I see that the individual pixels aren't actually blown-out, so perhaps you could pull it back a little in Photoshop? --King of ♠ 13:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    KoH: I lowered the luminosity overall a bit and the highlights a bit more. Poco2 13:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Composition is a bit simplistic, but nice. --King of ♠ 15:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I give you + if you make a bit more -EV (stones, sand is too much brigth). I like "lonely tree shot", would be better if some more to the rigth. --Mile (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    Mile: I uploaded a new version with an additional reduction of brightness, I agree that it looks better now. Regarding your second comment, are you suggesting a different crop? Poco2 18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Much better, even island can be seen better. Crop perhaps wider to the left, so tree wouldnt be so much in corner, but since i dont know what on left side was, maybe crop is best of the rest. --Mile (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Soundwaweserb (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lovely colors and marvelous mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Image:Hauptbahnhof Berlin von Westen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 09:54:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fabric of architectural elements, Berlin central station
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Fabric of architectural elements, Berlin central station. Created, uploaded and nominated by Denis Barthel -- Denis Barthel (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Denis Barthel (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bojars (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Great colors and detail. I find the composition a bit unsettling though, as you have the right half dominated by vertical lines, but on the bottom left there are curved lines drawing attention away from the center, and then a different architectural element placed in the top left. Ultimately, I've spent quite a while trying to decide on my vote, and I must admit that the composition is interesting at least, so I'll give my Symbol support vote.svg Support. --King of ♠ 01:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition is not really distinguished for me --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Villanueva de la Concepcion.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2015 at 09:40:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Villanueva de la Concepción and El Torcal Massif
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by imehling - uploaded by imehling - nominated by imehling -- Imehling (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Imehling (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well captured and nice sky, but most of the land is in shade. For FP it needs more "wow" and better light would give you that. -- Colin (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. Though the white house is a very nice addition to what would otherwise be a drab landscape. --King of ♠ 01:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Sandhill Cranes (Grus canadensis) (16757875775) (cropped).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 21:46:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sandhill Cranes (Grus canadensis) in Ewing Bottoms, Brownstown, IN
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Andrew C - uploaded by Natuur12/ cropped and reuploaded by [[Basvb- nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The image gives me a wow-feeling, the two very static cranebirds, simply ignoring each other and watching in the distance, also not bothered by the busy background (enhanced by the vagueness of this background to the viewer). They really portray that they don't give a damn around what happens around them, and are just happily standing on their single legs. - Basvb (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Bojars (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose JPG artefacts everywhere. Natuur12, can you save at a higher quality setting please (e.g. 90). Also, if you have any room to expand the crop vertically, that would help. It would be good if you could also update the version with Basvb's left-right crop as it is always best to save from the source image, than to re-crop a JPG (unless using lossless-crop tools). -- Colin (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    Colin, the source image is from Flickr (Natuur is not the photographer), when I look at the source file on flickr it seems that he has downloaded the highest resolution. Has information been lost in this process? If I compare the image to the original one on Flickr I can't see any loss in quality. The file has been cropped using logless setting in CropTool. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    Ok, I've sent him a mail on Flickr. -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    I wasn't very observant this morning as I see now you used CropTool. Andrew C has uploaded a new version to Flickr and I've uploaded it to Commons, and a lossless crop too. -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the colours and the pose of the birds. The background naturally has other birds in the flock and have just the right amount of blur. -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not that well defined and not a QI yet. Background distracting and image may not be vertically aligned. --Charles (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Charles, you may be right about a slight vertical tilt, but the vertical crop is too tight to fix this (unless one wants to start using Photoshop to replace missing mud/sky). -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 07:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Black cutworm pupae.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 21:33:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A pupae of Agrotis ipsilon
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab, Uploaded by Natuur12 - nominated by Natuur12 -- Natuur12 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A pupea of Agrotis ipsilon. While this pupea is really small the object is sharp and very detailed. It illustrates this lifestage of Agrotis ipsilon perfectly and it has the WOW-factor for me. Natuur12 (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Would be nice to have a scale in the bottom corner. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Very sharp and detailed, but I don't like the lighting. The bright spots detract from the overall image. --King of ♠ 00:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lights at both edges are disturbing; but overall OK for me considering the production complexities. Jee 11:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lighting is fine for me. The details are very nice here. -- Pofka (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 14:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I too agree; lighting is just fine. And yes, a scale would be nice to have. Great image otherwise. -- Kamranki (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, D kuba (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High EV --· Favalli ⟡ 00:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Riga Skyline Panorama, Latvia - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 18:59:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Riga Skyline Panorama (360).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Thanks Pofka, that was on my 'maybe I'll nominate' list so it's a support from me. Diliff (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. For the record, it has a slight issue with the straightness of the horizon (although I've already tried to fix it and had some trouble) and some minor stitching glitches on the water that I will try to fix. Diliff (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely. --King of ♠ 00:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I was never a fan of this kind of panoramas, with extreme distortions and lighting contrasts. In my opinion nothing really interesting in the composition mitigates those flaws in the present case. Big is not necessarily beautiful. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The interesting thing is that the entire 360 degree view is visible in a single image. It's an image that rewards you for looking for viewing it full screen and looking for details. Yes, you're right that it's impossible to get nice lighting in all directions but you have to accept the image for what it is and what its strengths and weaknesses are, I suppose. Diliff (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Alvesgaspar. 360° panorama looks so strange. I would crop it to get whole riversigth, would be better. And resize would benefit. --Mile (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I cannot even open it. I really adore most of Diliff's pictures, but I don't see the use of this one. Sorry. The size itself doesn't make it featurable in my eyes. --Code (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
    • You don't even see the use of it? I can understand if you don't think it's a very aesthetic view of Riga, but of course it has a use. I don't think there are few better ways to show what the city of Riga looks like (the architecture, the relative position of buildings and natural features etc) than a 360 degree view from a central vantage point above the city. I admit that 360 degree panoramas are sometimes awkward to view because the large size, cylindrical perspective (meaning horizontal straight lines become curved) or the aspect ratio, but if you can't open it, you could try a bit harder as there are plenty of options available (including downloading it and viewing it in an external image viewer if your browser won't do it). Diliff (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Also, it's interesting how times change... 8 years ago, an 360 degree image (inferior in resolution and in stitching quality) was given a very different reception. Diliff (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @Diliff: Well, probably "use" is the wrong word here. I'm sorry, it's always a little bit hard to explain all these things in English, it's not my mother tongue. However, the picture may certainly be useful somehow as it shows a complete view of Riga. What I meant was that I don't understand the benefit of having a complete 360° view in just one picture. I tried to open the full size picture in Chrome and in Firefox and none of them worked. Maybe I could download it and try to open it in Photoshop but to be honest, that's not the user experience I'm searching for on Wikimedia Commons. Of course, the trouble with opening it is no reason to oppose here. It just makes me restrain from voting. I really hope that you don't understand me wrong, your pictures are great. It's just that this is not what I would support in getting featured. --Code (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, but unbalanced composition. I'd consider supporting a rendering of this panorama that centers on the stone bridge. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Postbriefkasten im Innenhof von Burg Ludwigstein, Hessen, Deutschland IMG 1325 26 27 28 29 30 31 edit.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 13:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yellow letter box at Burg Ludwigstein, Hesse, Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n by Christoph Braun (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice, but what's so special? --Tremonist (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps there is no special. Why should it? For me it is a very good composition und a faultless image. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality image, no magic. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A clear and good image, but nothing very special here. --Cayambe (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very good image, but it's missing something special to make it stand out. --El Grafo (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Cu Đê River, Da Nang.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 09:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cu Đê River, Da Nang
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting is not bad but not enough going on in the composition. --King of ♠ 00:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose An excellent composition and lighting somehow spoiled by poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Was it stitched in-camera on with PC? Are there raw source files or JPG? It is a very high-resolution image, so I'm happy to review after downsizing on my PC. I tried reducing the image to 6MP and it is wonderfully sharp and mostly noise-free at that size, except for bottom left. I think the scene and composition are good enough it is worth trying to improve the quality. Christopher if you have raw sources, I'd be happy to see if I can improve it (I wouldn't publish them without your permission -- I'd send any results back to you). Email me if you want to try this. -- Colin (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hey Colin, thanks for your offer. To be honest, I'm quite amazed by the comments saying that my panoramics have a poor quality—if instead I'd provide an image at 50% of the size, probably no one would say a such thing and the resulting image would still contain 13 Mpx, way above the requirements for FP. Sounds like an easy fix, doesn't it?
As for the RAWs, I wouldn't mind sending them to you if I could but the stich is made of 8 images of 33.4 MB each, for a total over 250 MB, when my internet connection in Vietnam already struggled with uploading the mere 24 MB of this current image. Also, I did play around with the noise reduction/sharpening settings of Lightroom but I ended up preferring the original version and judged this noise fair enough for the resolution. Note that this has been taken at ISO 400 with a Fuji X100S, known to do pretty well with higher ISOs, but the light was low at that time and the original RAWs are quite dark, so that might explain it. Maybe I should have cranked the ISOs rather than boosting the luminosity in Lightroom?
Anyhow, these FP critics are truly getting more and more disappointing over time—I think I'll just reupload a smaller resolution to prove my point and stick to that with the future ones. That'll make my panoramics more FP-proof and easier to upload, double win!
Christopher Crouzet (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you have pushed the exposure/lighting which has exposed the noise too much. But I'm in no rush so I suggest we can just wait till you get better internet access and upload to DropBox or similar if you want to. I suspect even a 50% reduction wouldn't satisfy the pixel-peepers and it really does look like you've not optimised the noise reduction. Let me know if/when you are able to do this. -- Colin (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Bah, it just came to my mind that instead of cranking up the luminosity directly on the RAW files, I've done it after stiching............... such a clever boy. I'll upload a new version soon. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. -- Pofka (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Light and composition are very good. Sharpness is OK for an image of this size. Yann (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done XRay, Alvesgaspar, Colin, and Pofka—the image should have much less noise now! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Yann --· Favalli ⟡ 01:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support also per Yann. --El Grafo (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High resolution so downsample (for review) to around 24MP makes the sharpness good. Great scene. -- Colin (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Yann and Colin. --Baresi F (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Image:Light painting screw.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 07:55:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lichtschraube rückwärts, ein Zufallsprodukt
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Running full speed backwards circling a torch laughing created by Karsten Knöfler - uploaded by Karsten Knöfler - nominated by Karsten Knöfler -- KKnoefler247 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- KKnoefler247 (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting. But what is it? --Tremonist (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An accidental product out of boredom, i added info above. KKnoefler247 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Something different with lots of wow and sufficient quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support unusual, but nice and FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 13:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Immediately catches your eyes. -- Pofka (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 13:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very interesting, but noisy. Sorry. Face-sad.svg 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Pancuran Tujuh, near Baturraden, Purwokerto 2015-03-23 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 04:57:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pancuran Tujuh, Purwokerto
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Crisco 1492. Pancuran Tujuh is a sulphur spring in Baturraden District, Purwokerto. This panoramic image is from 40 frames and shows it (and the... erm, "uniquely" shaped outlets) in great detail. Note that the name means "Seven Springs", and all seven outlets are visible --  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support It's good. But one small comment: The cup at the right is a little bit disturbing.--XRay talk 13:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC) -- OK now. --XRay talk 05:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • D'oh! That's the thing I hate about Indonesia sometimes; the "nature" tourism is rarely natural. I'll see if I can clone it out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Plenty wow and well done with good detail. I would recommend removing the cup with Photoshop, though. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Crisco, there's a white drinking straw in the middle at the bottom -- it isn't very troubling but if you are editing anyway, it should be easy to clone out. I've added a note about an area I'm concerned is a stitching transition rather than the edge of steam. Can you check your source images to confirm if this area is authentic or the result of stitching. If it is a curved stitch edge, perhaps you can re-do the join with layers in photoshop, or use masks in PtGui to favour the clear frame over the steamy one? -- Colin (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What causes the vagueness/mistlike area just above the yellow parts in the leafs? Is this mist, and thus unpreventable? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • These are sulfur hot springs. That's steam. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great. Yann (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacks wow for me. Feels like an average travel snap, dull lighting, distracting building in the background that doesn't really compliment the main subject.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • An average travel snap which is 69.8 megapixels in size and sharp all the way through? If that's average, I want your camera. (Also, the building leads to a cave which is believed to have been the place where the spring's discoverer lived while treating himself in the waters; it's a monument to the discoverer and an intrinsic part of the site. Further details are in the English Wikipedia) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • By "average travel snap" i am referring to the composition and lighting and atmosphere of the photo. It should be obvious i am not referring to the file size. Besides, large sizes and sharpness could also well mean that it is a QI - FP require more than that.--Fotoriety (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
        • You didn't specify composition, however. Simply saying "average travel snap" can also imply the equipment and methodology were lacking (pocket camera, no tripod, no stitching in PTGui, no post-processing). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Now you're just being unnecessarily picky and confrontational: "average travel snap" and "distracting building in the background" can both refer to composition...but if you want to make a scene...--Fotoriety (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
            • I was simply saying that your term "average travel snap" was not inherently about composition (though your examples were), and thus it was unclear to me whether you intended this to refer solely to the composition, or whether there were technical issues that I'd missed (lack of perspective correction, color discrepancies, CA, etc., all of which are also common in "travel snaps"). That's not being "unnecessarily picky" or "making a scene", but "seeking clarification to improve one's work". We are, after all, all working together to provide good quality free imagery, and I'm always looking for ways to improve my contributions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Your desire to improve your photography is commendable.--Fotoriety (talk) 03:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment XRay, Colin: Cup is gone. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    And if possible, so add please a geo-tag too. Thanks, Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 13:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Baresi F (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Aythya nyroca at Martin Mere 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 23:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aythya nyroca
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ferruginous duck, Aythya nyroca, at Martin Mere, UK. All by me -- Baresi F (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Baresi F (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral- Pretty darn nice, but that black shadow in the top left ruins it for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Crisco 1492. I've tried to clone out the shadow - is that any better? --Baresi F (talk) 11:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beatiful bird! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, solid and very nice color. Basvb (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBruce1eetalk 04:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excellent quality but little magic. The tight crop is an obvious minus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I too would prefer a bit more space ahead of the duck. --Charles (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Magic is really fine with this one. -- Pofka (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Werkzeughalle der Quarzwerke -- 2015 -- 4433.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 17:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Plastic pipes, tool shed of the Quarzwerke in Sythen, Haltern, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now this is something different! Oh, and it's good technically, too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality and very original --LivioAndronico talk 21:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting in its perspective, good composition, technically sound. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support absolutely per Daniel Case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Many many thoughts and condolences to the families of the children from the Josef-König Gymnasium...--Jebulon (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Kłodzko, kościół Matki Bożej Różańcowej 32.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 17:51:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Our Lady of the Rosary church in Kłodzko

File:Arthur Timótheo da Costa - In the Studio - Google Art Project.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 16:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

In the Studio, by Arthur Timótheo da Costa

File:Altar of Santi Bonifacio e Alessio (Rome).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 16:01:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Altar of Santi Bonifacio e Alessio (Rome)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing sharp, overexposed areas, even though, a little bit dark photo. The right column is not even close to be in the correct perspective... -- RTA 21:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, nothing on focus, than nothing sharp... -- RTA 06:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support not ideal, but enough to FP in my opinion --Pudelek (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI only, and tight crop at base leaves no connection with ground. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The subject is the altar, the altar floor and I see it ... opposition with no sense for me --LivioAndronico talk 22:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A very good photo indeed, almost there! Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Even the smallest details are perfectly visible, no blown areas, the lighting is really nice. Though, it might be even sharper a little bit. Though, it probably meets the minimum FP standards. -- Pofka (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Henry Déziré, Tête de Bretonne au ruban rouge (avant 1913), Musées d'Art et d'Histoire de La Rochelle, cliché Max Roy.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 13:12:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Henry Déziré, Tête de Bretonne au ruban rouge, Musées d'Art et d'Histoire de La Rochelle
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Henry Déziré/Max Roy, uploaded by Araynaudreversat, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting painting, high quality reproduction. -- Yann (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Resolution is high enough to show the painting's features fully. --Tremonist (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Dandelion, April 2011.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 11:08:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Henry Marion (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because of artistic expression. --Tremonist (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I like the idea, the lighting and how the bright subject stands out against the dark background. I would have preferred a slightly deeper DOF and/or a focus point just a little bit further away, to have the whole central "docking station" in focus, if possible. A bit more space on the left and a bit less of it on the right side could maybe improve the composition as well. --El Grafo (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I really like the composition, but the depth of view is to small, only a very small part of the seeds (is that the correct word?) is in focus, more to all in focus would have really added to this image. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Pencil 01 kamranki.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 08:27:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Macro of a pencil
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by kamranki - uploaded by kamranki - nominated by Kamranki (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kamranki (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because of high resolution. --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because I hope it takes more than size to get something featurable. Or one could as well macro shot any object at home, and submit here. - Benh (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm actually more than happy with featuring macro shot of everyday objects, but the issue I have here is the execution in this instance. There's burn out part on the shaft of the pencil, and also is that fringing I see at the bottom part of the pencil? -- KTC (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not convinced by the lighting: Top and bottom of the wood section are well-lit, while the center section is quite dark. So the lighting diverts attention from the sharp center section to the not-so-sharp outer sections – should probably be the other way round, if you ask me. --El Grafo (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unexceptional macro photo. -- Colin (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. -- Pofka (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Ακρόπολη 6912.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 15:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An almost night view of the Acropolis of Athens
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An almost night view of the Acropolis of Athens from Pnyx (the darkest part of the photo has been removed). All by me -- C messier (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- C messier (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Too dark below. --Tremonist (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would say better crop is required. There is too much black in the bottom. Furthermore, the upper fog surroundings aren't that interesting as well (but it's fine because it focuses your view into the Acropolis). I think more centered version would look way better. -- Pofka (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can try to recover some detail from below from the raw. Pofka, you mean a further crop? --C messier (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Something like this: http://i.imgur.com/CtE4NwZ.jpg :) If it would be possible to recover some more detail from the bottom, then it would probably look even better. -- Pofka (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree with Pofka and his suggestion. But I'm afraid the subject itself is a bit soft.--Jebulon (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done cropped No raw for this set (and only) - Merphy's law :P --C messier (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. I really like the way Acropolis is lightened here. -- Pofka (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks very washed out as after too much highlight or shadow recovery. Some areas of the subject show almost no significant brightness changes. — Julian H. 20:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too big dynamic range to adequately capture with only one frame. Too dark foregorund and too many burned highlights. The illumination appers more white than what I can find from a Google image search for illuminated night shots. Also it is a bit too soft for my taste and there is a little fringing. For such a subject, shoot raw, try to combine several bracketed exposures to better catch the extreme dynamic range. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's actually four frames merged into one. And it has more DR than most of the other images in the category, with much less blown highlights. --C messier (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That information is worth adding to the file page, which has an exif indicating it is a single 6 s exposure. It is surprising that the end result does not exhibit a larger dynamic range when that is the case. May I ask how you have combined the exposures and how large the EV difference was? Do you still have the source images? It is my experience that you need a separation of 2 EV for four exposures with my entry level and not terribly new DSLR. There may be another optimum for your camera, which I am not familiar with.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Combined as descripted here (although the brightest was the base, because otherwise, the stars appear blacker than the sky), it 6s, 2,5s, 1/1,3s and 1/5s with same f, ISO and exposure compasation, and I have kept the original images.--C messier (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @C messier: Thanks for the information. If my math is correct that corresponds to steps of around 1.2 EV, 1.7 EV and 1.95 EV, which is a slightly odd spread of the exposures, especially the span from 2.5s to 6 s is a little low (1.2 EV), but it should be fairly OK, I guess. I do not know how well the GIMP method described works as compared to other methods. If you are interested in sharing your source images I could try and have a go at it using PTGui to make a 32 bit floating point "super raw" tif and postprocess that in lightroom as an alternative. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @Slaunger: Were can I upload them? They are useless on their own to upload here. And if you can align the pictures, I have also a nearly identical set of exposures, but with raw with 6w, 1,6s and 1/4s. --C messier (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
          • @C messier: In PTGui alignment is easy, and raw as source is better too, asCA can be removed efficiently in Lightroom prior to exporting to PTGui in 16 bit tiff for HDR fusion. Where to upload? Hmmm, well I used Dropbox, when I had Diliff help me with a restitch. If you do not want to share them in a public folder, I can email you, such that you can share a private folder. Any other file sharing service of your choice is another option, if it is not too big a hazzle for me to access. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Slaunger, check your e-mail. --C messier (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
            • @C messier:: Thanks, I have send you a few candidates by mail. Not a vast improvement, but in some respects perhaps an improvement, in others perhaps not? Have a look, and see if you fand any of them relevant for upload. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
            • @Slaunger:, thank you for your time, but the jpeg-based looks overprocessed (with a black halo around the acropolis), the other looks better, although a bit too yellow. --C messier (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
              • @C messier: New versions mailed to you, less processed and less yellow (I am not too convinced of the results to be honest, except for the foreground vegetation). -- Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the dark grey light-polluted sky isn't good. Prefer your one with blue sky but neither are sharp enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Air National Guard wraps up training at Global Dragon 150319-Z-SV144-004.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 15:21:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Decontamination during a Global Dragon training event
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Christopher Muncy - uploaded by -- (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. -- (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am sorry, too wow for me --The_Photographer (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks very catchy at low resolution. Reminds some kind of video game or something. Definitely has that "Wow, what's that??" feeling. -- Pofka (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Wow is certainly there, but the overall image quality is not there, and it is Symbol wtf vote.svg Overprocessed for my taste. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this may be one of those cases, where WOW trumps quality. Processing seems appropriate for this kind of picture – I'm even inclined to say that more of that "funky" processing wouldn't necessarily hurt if it moved it still further into the direction of video games and science fiction movies. Photography does not always have to try to resemble what the human mind perceives as "reality" as closely as possible, even at FPC. --El Grafo (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Wow does it for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I have to go neutral despite the wow factor. In addition to the quality side it has another downside which in my opinion is the composition. It looks like it's trying to be central oriented but it's still quite not symmetrical. Enough flaws make me go below the support mood this time. --Ximonic (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Solidago rugosa 001.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 05:59:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Solidago rugosa
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you for nomination Christian Ferrer. --Famberhorst (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice yellow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A no wow and a distracting background would be enough to oppose for me. But here it's not even processed correctly with (compression ?) artifacts all over the place even where it's originally blurred, and a lot of jagged lines. - Benh (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done AC removed.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh, sorry. — Julian H. 08:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background separation not enough for FP -- Colin (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Southern sea lion, L'Oceanogràfic (1).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 00:03:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Southern sea lion
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Southern sea lion (Otaria flavescens) at L'Oceanogràfic. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support maybe a litte bit too centered, but in all, supported by my opinion --Bojars (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, just a QI for me. For a zoo photo, I'd expect better sharpness and the framing / background isn't inspiring. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot! --Halavar (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality image; however, as per issues raised by Colin, IMO not at FP level. Perhaps could also have done with some direct sunlight to really bring out the iridescence of the wet fur, and increase the overall contrast --Baresi F (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:View to Sifjorden from Sifjord, Senja, Troms, Norway in 2014 August.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 12:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Јованвб (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition of this image confuses me. Is the main subject meant to be the plants in the foreground, or the land/water in the background? Combining the two doesn't work for me I'm afraid. -- KTC (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is certainly a way above photo as usual for Ximonic, but I find the light is flat, and the composition is not quite there. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find this composition quite good and the mood wonderful. Lots of wow for me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Before all, thanks for this nomination! I like this picture and view but to be honest, have no special feels for it. The mood of the weather was quite wonderful when seen by oneself but not so optimal for photography. Instead of having a very specified subject this is more like postcardish kind of a photo giving a good idea of the local landscape... Which it does rather well as it is quite typical scenery for the area. Anyhow, I stay curious about external points of view from other people. Thanks! --Ximonic (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Finally I think it is worth the star. Yann (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like this double-minded composition --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Pitt Rivers Museum Interior, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 01:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pitt Rivers Museum
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Јованвб (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This takes me right back - I used to queue for lectures on the first floor walkway on the right. --Baresi F (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An amazing picture! I wonder how was it possible to have nearly everything in focus with f/8. Those used to make panoramas know how tricky it can be to deal with the various plans in the photos. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The trick is to use the hyperfocal distance rather than focus at infinity as most people do (when using autofocus). Also, this was easier than many of my church/cathedral interiors where I try to get everything from about 50cm away to infinity in focus, there was nothing nearby nearby which needed focus. I think the nearest pillars were 3-4 metres away which makes f/8 a bit easier to work with. Diliff (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:San Bernardo alle Terme - ceiling.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2015 at 09:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

San Bernardo alle Terme - ceiling
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 09:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico talk 09:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor sharpness, CA everywhere, clipped white,... --A.Savin 10:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per A.Savin. Interesting idea but poorly performed. ISO 400 seems to be too much for this camera, theres NR smudge visible everywhere. --Kreuzschnabel 12:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • unfortunately I had to use ISO 400 because Security stopped me immediately with tripod --LivioAndronico talk 13:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not the camera (see [1]). I hope that in 201X no DSLR performs this poorly at ISO 400. - Benh (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want i can send you the raw --LivioAndronico talk 15:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If it's fine with you I can try to have a look. - Benh (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done New version --LivioAndronico talk 16:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Friends will be friends - right till the end! --A.Savin 16:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Even the enemies Savin Clin --LivioAndronico talk 16:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing sharp, too soft, some CA. No enemies here for me, just my opinion about a photograph. Not the best of "Commons", far from FP standards IMO, quality wise. Excellent point of view and nice symmetry though. Good idea, not good enough achievement.--Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • But infact Jebulon, you are objective and your opinion, as you know, is always well accepted. Anyway Thanks Face-smile.svg--LivioAndronico talk 17:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon. Well below FP technical quality standards. -- Colin (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Dahlia 'Moonfire' 006.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2015 at 05:50:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Dahlia 'Moonfire'. A brilliant selection. Warm colors combined with dark leaves. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Touzrimounir (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose From an APS-C size sensor camera from 2012, I don't understand the image quality. There is this strange, not sure which word to use, maybe flaky texture across the whole image. At just over 4 Megapixels, I don't think that's acceptable in a FP.Julian H. 15:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Definitely much better now. I'll give a good Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral because it's still quite small and relatively usual in what it looks like. — Julian H. 08:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of details by over-sharpened and heavy NR. Halos around petals and probably a bit over-saturated. I just presumed... :) --Laitche (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version. --Famberhorst (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The new version is getting better except the composition but still not reach the FP bar, I think. --Laitche (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: You mean the crop? --Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't know the reason exactly, Maybe that needed ISO 200 and 1/40 exposure time when this has been taken, just a little bit motion blur happened or maybe lack of luminous for a APS-C, in any case it's not enough detailed for a FP, I guess, imo. --Laitche (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Just my opinion. Currently 5 support 1 oppose 1 neutral, never mind :) --Laitche (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I seem to have a bit of a problem with the background. It looks a bit like you cut the flower and placed it in a vase on a table with a nicely trimmed lawn in the background to achieve a smooth background. No, I'm not saying you actually did that, with a flower of this height it's easily possible to get this effect in situ. It's just that it looks a bit artificial to me – which is to be expected for an artificial cultivar growing in an artificial garden, but still … To be honest, I just don't like it as an image and would have probably preferred a plain black studio background. Or to say it in FPC slang: No WOW → Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dahlias are not hardy in the Netherlands and are usually used as a pot plant. The Dahlia was also in a pot with the background lawn.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the explanation – it doesn't really matter, though. It's probably just a matter of taste – others seem to disagree with my opinion and that's perfectly fine, of course. Forgot to say in my initial review: The colors of the flower itself look really great, imo. --El Grafo (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jastarnia, schron bojowy Sęp (WLZ14).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2015 at 13:31:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Bunker Sęp, Jastarnia, Poland. All by 1bumer -- 1bumer (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 1bumer (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- mrtony77 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite ugly structure, but looks surprisingly good as whole composition. -- Pofka (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting subject, but the lighting is too flat. --King of ♠ 02:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would prefer less space on top and more towards the sea. — Julian H. 10:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, nice high difference in the composition, although Julian has good points, very nice colloring. Basvb (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Fishermen - Tamandaré - Brasil pan.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 22:31:18
Visit the nomination page
Freshwater fishermen near Tamandaré, Brazil

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It's a nice scene sure, but even at its less than 0.9MP resolution, nothing is sharp. Previous removal nominations have over time moved from keeping it towards its removals, but though in majority, there weren't enough votes to delist the last three times. [Original nomination (2006), Removal/1 (2006), Removal/2 (2008), Removal/3 (2009), Removal/4 (2011)]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- KTC (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support FPCBot early closure avoidance Symbol support vote.svg Support scheme. -- KTC (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Far below the quality expected from FPs. --King of ♠ 23:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)'
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Size notwithstanding, would not pass if nominated now—blown cloud in center and noisy water surface. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per others. --Cayambe (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The only issue I see is the size. If you forgot the size it's a better image than more of 90% of what we have actually in the QIC page. -- Christian Ferrer 08:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    My primary issue isn't actually the size, but that (to me) everything is blurry. -- KTC (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Of course, I wasn't active in 2003, but comparing this to casual holiday images shot with decent (not DSLR) cameras back then the image quality still is quite bad. Not TBOC for me and probably never was. --DXR (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep good composition. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist quality issue. per KTC. --Laitche (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Nice picture, but far away from FP level quality-wise. --El Grafo (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Nice composition, but tilted and per others. — Julian H. 10:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist for todays expectations on a FP it should be delistend.--Hubertl (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Tremonist (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Eryphanis reevesii - Schmetterlingshaus Wien 4.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 18:07:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eryphanis reevesii
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Spacebirdy - uploaded by Spacebirdy - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 10:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background is too dark, I guess because of flashlight. --Laitche (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop is too tight, and the angle of the butterfly doesn't aid in the composition.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Agree with previous opposes, the crop is too tight, the butterfly is too dark and the angle makes it awkward. I've always thought that butterfly images should be rotated so that the insect is horizontal, but only if there is nothing in the background that would look strange if the image was rotated (such as a horizon, a flower, etc). Diliff (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support From this pose and look, I assume it is a newly emerged one drying its wings. The crop is a bit tight; but 15 MP out of 18, so I don't think not much to do now. It is more of a matter how much magnification we need still keeping enough space around. Flash is disturbing; but reminds me this previous FP. Jee 11:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Should be able to get better composition and lighting in a butterfly house image. --Charles (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Erywań, Katedra św. Grzegorza Oświeciciela (05).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 14:07:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saint Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral. Yerevan, Armenia.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Saint Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral. Yerevan, Armenia. - all by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Halavar (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely mood. --King of ♠ 17:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support These clouds contrasts very well with the church. Really good timing. -- Pofka (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Makes you wander, do city planners deliberately calculate how they can ruin the aesthetics of a setting by (as in this example) adding a communications mast just slightly off-centre from this cathedral?--Fotoriety (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point. That chimney on the right looks ugly as well. Somebody really should be fired in this city. -- Pofka (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The communications mast is now blasted out: 2014 Erywań, Katedra św. Grzegorza Oświeciciela (05) edit.jpg. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am opposed to this type of practices that falsify reality. --Halavar (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Halavar: +1. So you (we both) can withdraw the alt-version. My reworked version was only to show us the same image without the communications mast. Sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It can stay. No problem. --Halavar (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 10:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The chimney doesn't interfere. From the first time I don't notice the difference between the photos. :) --Brateevsky {talk} 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also ok I guess. — Julian H. 08:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Pofka: great lighting! --El Grafo (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ordinarily I might find things to justify a weak oppose: the detail on the people going up the steps is a little soft (I think you could have gone up to f/11 at least), there's some noise in the clouds, and the antenna. But the first two are not enough to offset the stunning symmetry of this shot, and the clouds behind the building actually make the antenna less of an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jebulon (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

2014 Erywań, Katedra św. Grzegorza Oświeciciela (05) edit.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Edited and proposed version by Alchemist-hp without the mast in the background. Thanks. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Without the mast. — Julian H. 15:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Removal of permanent structures (even if not pretty) is not acceptable for FPC, imo. --DXR (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There may be cases where removing things from an image is acceptable or even beneficial, but I don't think this is one of them. --El Grafo (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks way better, but as others said: We have to keep reality as it is. -- Pofka (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Agustín Salinas y Teruel - School Festival at Ipiranga - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 11:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

School Festival at Ipiranga, by Agustín Salinas y Teruel


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi in Hazrat-e Turkestan, Kazakhstan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 10:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A UNESCO site, Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi in Hazrat-e Turkestan, Kazakhstan.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A UNESCO World heritage site, Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi in Hazrat-e Turkestan, Kazakhstan. Prime example of Timurid architecture, hence conical shapes. Shot off-centre, to the left. All by -- Mile (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 12:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks like image is not straight. Building leans inward. That can be fixed. I think image should be first checked in QI pole. --Halavar (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made PD correction. --Mile (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now. --Halavar (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More good pictures of Kazakhstan! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks amassing. --Јованвб (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 19:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Perth International Arts Festival SMC 2010.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 10:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Theatrical group La Fura dels Baus opening Perth International Arts Festival 2010.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Theatrical group La Fura dels Baus opening Perth International Arts Festival 2010. Created by SeanMack - uploaded by SeanMack - nominated by QuimGil -- QuimGil (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The deletion request discussion is distorting the evaluation of this picture. Can I remove it from Featured picture candidates, and propose it again if it is decided that the image can stay in Commons?--QuimGil (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- QuimGil (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting and unsual. Yann (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting, but too noisy.--XRay talk 10:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Meister und Margarita (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I wonder why this event should be free of copyright for this artistic performance (e.g. like all show of Cirque du Soleil). There is no admit to make pictures of this written. So I have to assume that this image is a copyright infringement and therefore I started a DR. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info The DR is here. You are mistaken on the copyright issue: it is fine. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, then you should start DRs on your own pictures of performing artists first, e.g. this one. There also is no admit to make pictures of this written. 80.187.102.219 22:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Please start it if you think it's reasonable and spare us with your anonyms input. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)



Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Wed 25 Mar → Mon 30 Mar
Thu 26 Mar → Tue 31 Mar
Fri 27 Mar → Wed 01 Apr
Sat 28 Mar → Thu 02 Apr
Sun 29 Mar → Fri 03 Apr
Mon 30 Mar → Sat 04 Apr

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

Sat 21 Mar → Mon 30 Mar
Sun 22 Mar → Tue 31 Mar
Mon 23 Mar → Wed 01 Apr
Tue 24 Mar → Thu 02 Apr
Wed 25 Mar → Fri 03 Apr
Thu 26 Mar → Sat 04 Apr
Fri 27 Mar → Sun 05 Apr
Sat 28 Mar → Mon 06 Apr
Sun 29 Mar → Tue 07 Apr
Mon 30 Mar → Wed 08 Apr

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/March 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/March 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.