Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2019

File:2017.05.13.-02-Bruehl Rohrhof--Margerite.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 16:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
Info In the middle of the blossom there is water from the rain what was fallen just before. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs a meaningful filename first. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 23:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has. Date-Number_of_the_Date-location--subject.jpg --Hockei (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would rotate the image 30° ccw and crop the blossom only, so that the white thing in the right background disappears. -- -donald- (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:5000 rupiah bill, 2001 series (2009 date), processed, obverse and reverse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2019 at 13:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Bank Indonesia / Crisco 1492, uploaded by Crisco 1492, nominated by Yann (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I would have preferred a white background. Very large resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Right on the money! Daniel Case (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

The chosen alternative is: File:5000_rupiah_bill,_2001_series_(2009_date),_processed,_obverse_and_reverse.jpg

File:Mother Nature, Summer (Unsplash).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2019 at 15:48:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Autumn Goodman, uploaded by Fæ, nominated by Yann (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this portrait, as an allegory. -- Yann (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Artificial flowers but the smile looks natural. Coincidence or not, it reminds me Banania -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The smile makes it, even if it's a little overexposed. I suppose it could be cropped in on the sides (and a bit on top), but it's pretty small as it is. Daniel Case (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Gerania bosci bosci (longhorn beetle) on a leaf.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 03:14:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Cerambycidae_(Longhorned_Beetles)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I'm going to nominate this focus stacking version which I think is better-- Basile Morin (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mirror reflection of a water buffalo bathing in a pond in Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 04:41:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good closeup and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! --Podzemnik (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Podzemnik's appreciation. --Harlock81 (talk) 14:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Bovidae_(Bovids)

File:United States Botanic Garden Washington April 2017 003.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 02:47:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The composition isn't doing much for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing light, cut trees and obstructive bushes -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and Basile --Isiwal (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden Gate Park San Francisco December 2016 006.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 07:53:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Captivating! --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice long-exposure shot -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MB-one (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the lines showing the stream - Benh (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like most of it but the very top is cropped rather tightly and the bridge is at a slightly awkward angle. -- Colin (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd prefer it with a perspective correction on both sides, but still a FP to me, the exposure time was precise to get the best result out of this scene. Poc o² 19:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cool! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. I wonder, that nobody is crying here, that it looks unrealistic. Alienation due to long exposure seem to be already established at this kind of motif. --Milseburg (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, however, I liked very much to see above on top that it seemed to have been cut abruptly --Photographer 01:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#United States

File:Poggersdorf Linsenberg Landschaft mit Birnbäumen 11012019 5938.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 10:20:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, beautiful light -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I see this kind of landscape all too often where I live. – Lucas 16:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. I think that a small vertical correction is needed. See the building.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but not a striking scenery for me. Big parts of the picture contain dirt. --A.Savin 20:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good use of line with plenty of foreground and background interest. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. -- Karelj (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sunlight on right side of image handled better than you see in most images. Daniel Case (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose well composed, for sure. But I cannot see a real main motive and wow here. The foreground contains is a relatively homogeneous dirt surface and does imho does not really help to strike a special overall message for this photo. Nonetheless great detail resolution of your lens (as can be seen in the branches of the trees). --Tuxyso (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 00:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It'd possibly work for me better if part of the dirt was cut. But still good with the dirt anyway :) --Podzemnik (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. (Regarding the foreground: that’s not “dirt”, it’s fertile ground, one of the most precious things for mankind, much more precious than gold, silver, money … ;-)) --Aristeas (talk) 08:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — 1989 (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 14:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Austria

File:Jabirú africano (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis), delta del Okavango, Botsuana, 2018-07-31, DD 11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 19:40:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order : Ciconiiformes (Storks)
Info Exemplar of Saddle-billed stork (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis), Okavango Delta, Botswana. All by me, Poc o² 19:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice 'action' shot and fine colours with the green reeds and water in the foreground. Charles (talk)
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd prefer a little less of the (blurred) background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the wide aspect ratio here: it helps reinforce the horizontal lines which are a major part of the composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point of view. Thanks for the food for thought. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support simply great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:24, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support So good. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support Not perfect (and I think a little more CA on the bird could still be removed, although I don't know if that's what's left over after an earlier attempt; if so then it can stay as is) but gets a dynamic, active subject well. I also think it could be cropped at left to perhaps center the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Better not cropped. Eye is centred. Charles (talk) 11:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Strong chromatic aberration --Photographer 01:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what's wrong with you. - Benh (talk) 08:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benh the comments are about the nomination and not about the people that is voting. I have my own opinion and I have given it with respect. --Photographer 02:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer and Daniel Case: , that "strong" CA is gone, Poc o² 19:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks Poco, more better now!. What was Strong maybe in my monitor, remember that it could change the vision, my comments are always in good shape, they are never ill-intentioned --Photographer 02:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exceedingly stunning composition! ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 13:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Order : Ciconiiformes (Storks)

File:Nürnberg Schöner Brunnen und Frauenkirche 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 14:34:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Fountains
Info Schöner Brunnen and Frauenkirche in Nuremberg, Germany. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically very well done and high-quality, but the composition just feels unbalanced to me, with the Schöner Brunnen too dominant compared to the Frauenkirche. I think the problem here stems from having an element which is both large and more off-center than the other main element; balancing visual weight is just like balancing weights on a fulcrum, and heavier objects need to be closer to the center or it won't work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. -- Karelj (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Madagascar fody (Foudia madagascariensis) male 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 20:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Was probably a Madagascar endemic, but has been introduced to neighbouring islands. Length 13cm. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice at screen size, but at full resolution it lacks details, especially the head -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although you've presented sharper bird portraits, I'm really impressed by composition, bokeh, and the complementary contrast created by dominating red and green color shades --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin - excellent composition; however, the technical quality is borderline acceptable. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 13:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Berkenzwam (Piptoporus betulinus) (d.j.b.) 08.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2019 at 05:48:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Piptoporus betulinus.
Info Birch mushroom (Piptoporus betulinus) on the trunk of a birch. This young Birch mushroom is still under development. The fungus still looks fresh, and still has little damage. Look at the rust brown edge of the mushroom and the nice white underside.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good mushroom photo and nice labeling, except that I don't think you mean "gift" brown? Gilt (gold), maybe? It seems more nearly rust brown to me, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Color description adjusted in rust brown. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- very nice Seven Pandas (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little noisy in the back, but I blame the exposure for that. Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Church of the Holy Sepulchre of Villeneuve 14.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2019 at 16:12:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what takes this above a QI. The composition and light aren't great, and there are distracting wires and postit notes. -- Colin (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise and clouds over the Étang de Thau from Mèze 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2019 at 10:43:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per "all sunsets are nice". Not exceptional enough. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin.--Peulle (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colin's comment has a certain point here but this isn't a simple touristic sunset shot either. I like the structure in the foreground, the longer exposure time, the still natural colours and the sky. However the sky seems a bit noisy to me. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I change very often the way I edit my photos, and I am in a phase where I privilege the atmosphere to perfection :), this affects the result; Maybe I should try to combine the two? certainly of course! many thanks you for the comments!

I withdraw my nomination Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cucurbita 2018 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2019 at 12:36:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The surrounding duty soil gives it a distinct earthiness. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Harsh light but goes well with the dry, almost sandy dirt. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The floor distracts me, the composition ordinary does not seem orderly. Only my opinion --Photographer 14:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per The Photographer, I fail to see something special here photographically. – Lucas 14:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Composition (arrangement of subject, viewing angle, framing, distance) and light don't seem anything special. -- Colin (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A background of all dirt and maybe some hay would be fine, but the green is distracting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I find the arrangement of squashes orderly, and I think this is a good photo, but I don't find it a great composition or, as per Colin, in great light, so to me, it's a solid QI but not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but maybe a little crop the background would be better. --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is the "natural habitat" ;-) --Llez (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did you some post-processing or did you use special Tilt-shift macro lens? The fruits are 100% sharp, whereas the farer background is not. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Photo taken with a standard Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. This is my favorite lens. There was no special post-processing, only crop. I took a lot of shots from different angles and with different apertures. This one i chose as the most successful. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Detail is very good, but per Colin, sorry Poc o² 19:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rich harvest, count your blessings. The photo would fit to any Thanksgiving text. --Iotatau (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --El Grafo (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Eugène Du Faget - Costume designs for Guillaume Tell - 1-3. Laure Cinti-Damoreau as Mathilde, Adolphe Nourrit as Arnold Melchtal, and Nicolas Levasseur as Walter Furst.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2019 at 05:47:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Eugène Du Faget - restored, reassembled, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While en:WP:FPC is being a bit... inactive (seriously, no point me nominating anything new over there until some of the most recent four images I have up are actually passing), I thought I might bring over the most... interesting of the things I've been doing for the Rossini push over there. Thought this one was going to be a set, to be honest, but then I realised it was one image, cut to pieces. Found evidence of similar images, not cut to pieces; the joins were pretty much perfect, following the contours of the watercolour blobs to literal pixel perfection, and hence, for probably first time in around two centuries, I present the original scene set out when designing these costumes. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice sleuthing! Can you read the very faint writing in pencil below "Guillaume Tell Nourrit"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the other pencil markings are role - actor, or "dans Guillaume Tell" so it's going to be something in those lines, but it really isn't legible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive work. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Rain over Beinn Eich, Luss Hills, Scotland.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2019 at 22:05:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Storms
Info All by me. It's a photo of rain in Luss Hills, Scotland -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love it. What a beautiful sunshower! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mood. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rain as we don't see it often -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support "IIIII ... love the feel of rain in the summertiii-iiiime / IIIII ... love the feel of rain on my faaace" Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Winter in Trossachs, Scotland.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2019 at 21:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
Info All by me. Winter view towards Craig of Monievreckie from Lake Menteith. Trossachs, Scotland. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light, lots of interesting details to look at. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Ausblick vom Steilufer Schönhagen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2019 at 16:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info View from the cliff in south of Schönhagen (Germany) over the Baltic Sea. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but please add information about how many degrees this view is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done The view angle is 275°, looking to the east in the middle. --Milseburg (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't find the composition compelling. The bottom is cut, and the light unappealing, due to the cylindrical projection. With this kind of picture, I usually feel like hallucinating , because it is so unreal, not fitting to any logic representation of the brain. Perhaps we would see it differently with bird eyes or fish eyes :-) I understand the educational potential of large views with mountains for example, or buildings, to locate them on the same image, but here as a landscape, only sea and cliff, what is the point of such a "psychotropic view" ? Similarly a tree with kilometers-long branches or a house with extraordinary large curved windows would just appear unaesthetic and strange, I think. Now if I make an effort to imagine this place with its corrected dimensions, not only I find it a bit ordinary (nothing special, harsh light), but also difficult (the shapes I try to build intellectually are certainly subjective and very different from the true ones). Probably this montage is a technical work, but I'm sure if this spot was really amazing, then a simple rectilinear projection would have made it much more attractive -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did you scroll though it or looking the totale? --Milseburg (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both, but the scrolling is reduced in the center -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really got your "psychotropic" point. Where are distorted lines? Maybe the curved shoreline at the bottom if it wasn't cut. Of course nobody can see 275° in one view. But in full resolution you first see the north part of the cliff, then you turn your head and body while scrolling, and see the the Danisch island Ærø on the other side of the sea, the Cumulonimbus over the horizon, the drift of the former cliff under the water and finally the south part of the cliff. It´s representing my optical impression in synopsis while standing on this geotop and let my eyes wander from north over east to south. --Milseburg (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why I find this view psychotropic ? It does not correspond to any visual reality in my brain. Although, it is a landscape, for sure. Then, I wonder : Is my vision altered by some kind of a magic mushroom, or is this landscape really distorted ? Of course, it is distorted by the cylindrical projection, but at first sight things are not obvious. Symmetrical cliffs with rounded beaches certainly exist somewhere on Earth, with real lines and true relief, but this view here is just odd like twisted unfortunately -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Basile explained it well – Lucas 08:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If I look at this on Google maps I see a perfectly straight stretch of coast. But if I look at the above image and I see a curved bay. This is false, an illusion due to the projection. Really, this kind of extreme wide angle only makes sense in a 360° image viewer tool. And yes, the view from a straight coast, out to a blank sea, in the midday sun, is not really that amazing. I would really, really, encourage Milseburg to take up a different kind of photography in 2019, where you choose a composition by framing something interesting, and seek out interesting light, rather than just swinging the camera around in an arc. -- Colin (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see it different. I expected it would be a challenge to support this kind of image. I have no problem if anybody is unable to share my ardor for making it like this. --Milseburg (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- But I love panoramics. ;) MartinD (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin.--Peulle (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de San Pablo de la Cruz, Ruse, Bulgaria, 2016-05-27, DD 11-13 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2019 at 20:40:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info Interior of the St Paul of the Cross Cathedral, Ruse, northeastern Bulgaria. The temple, dedicated to the founder of the Passionists was built in 1890 and is an example of Gothic Revival architecture in the country. All by me, Poc o² 20:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lens flare is a bit disturbing, however, excellent colors and church --Photographer 01:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great sharpness, and a lot more colorful than we get from a typical church at FPC. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always nice to have another image from Bulgaria. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cquoi (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:Dülmen, Lüdinghauser Tor -- 2019 -- 2790.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2019 at 22:00:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 22:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 22:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It doesn't work for me. Perspective, street lamp under the arch, tight crop on the right, cut tree on the left. Dark and experimental but not successful in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is really difficult. There are a lot of disturbing elements around the gate. It's not a street lamp, it's the lightning of the gate from the other side. The crop at the left: I used 20 mm focal length, may be other with a fish eye lens. Then you can see the pharmacy on the left, but not the tree. And on the right, you may see a disturbing street sign and another building. --XRay ^talk 07:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Disturbing elements" are never a good start for a great picture... Now paying more attention to this lightning, it is facing us straight, sending its strong rays in front. That's maybe why it's so embarrassing. And its reflection on the ground is even more agressive, interfering with the rear lights of the car -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Perspective distortion can be done artfully but it just doesn't work for me here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO this photo has a real artistic value - I like the placement of street light inside the gate. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile and King. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pomegranate Juice (2019).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2019 at 17:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Augustus Binu - uploaded by Augustus Binu - nominated by Augustus Binu -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Request Mydreamsparrow, please make these a set nomination – Lucas 18:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think these fit the requirements for a set. They are just three arbitrary compositions. I think Mydreamsparrow should decide which one is their favourite and nominate that. -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please can you upload the full-size JPG. This is a studio photo, so no reason to be smaller than your Nikon creates. This seems to be downsized to about 66%. -- Colin (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Mary's Syro-Malabar Cathedral Basilica, Ernakulam by Augustus Binu.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2019 at 17:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created by Augustus Binu - uploaded by Augustus Binu - nominated by Augustus Binu
Support -- Mydreamsparrow (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice detail, but overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. It's OK to blow out windows, but the whitest flowers must be retained. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glaze on 3000, av Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Québec.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2019 at 23:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Ice
Info All by -- Photographer 23:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love the icy trees, and I almost feel the cold just looking at this (not quite - my apartment is comfortable on this chilly day, but not that chilly!). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a great moment to capture, and I too feel the chilly scenes of winter vibes looking at this, but ... it's just too busy to easily settle on one subject. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has so many nice details, but in one shot, it seems cluttered. --MB-one (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gyps fulvus in flight.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 03:47:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created and uploaded by Ritchyblack — nominated by 1989 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really impressive, but at such a small resolution I'm going to have to nitpick pixel-level details: sharpness is not perfect and there are blue haloes around the wingtips (could be CA, motion blur, or sharpening artefacts). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great capture but only 4,7 MPx and blue halos around the wingtips -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small but - at least for me - extremely hard to capture. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a zoo. Probably a daily performance -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I tried in similar conditions but failed completely. Just need to practice more I guess. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per King. Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive attitude. --Harlock81 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please fix the chromatic aberration and I will change my vote to support. --Photographer 02:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cquoi (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd wish for more resolution, but still impressive. --MB-one (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes

File:Austrian Future Cup 2018-11-23 Training Afternoon Horizontal bar (Martin Rulsch) 0149.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 10:11:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by DerHexer - nominated by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MB-one (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Not the sharpest but definitely a fun shot! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A fun shot indeed! MartinD (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp and overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Curtiss P40N Kittyhawk OTT2013 D7N8883 BEA 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 14:36:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport
Info created and uploaded by Ritchyblack — nominated by 1989 (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe I'm being too tough, but it's a small file and I'm not overwhelmed by the sharpness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 4,2 Mpx only and technical weakness, it seems 1/320 s was not fast enough to avoid motion blur -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Just a little too much blur and CA. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Etangs de Bassies 12.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 08:26:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question I like it very much. But it is a bit too noisy for my taste. Maybe you can denoise it a bit without at expense of the image sharpness? --Hockei (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe it is a bit noisy but within reasonable limits IMO. I would not like to spoil the picture by strong denoising. Tournasol7 (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice landscape shot but I don't think that it's among the finest of Commons. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To me, this is really beautiful, and I think it's naturally hazy and that's OK. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. I like the subtlety of the composition and lighting. The lakes provide a meandering leading line, inviting the viewer to linger on the picture and notice details like the two rock trails leading into the center as well. The haze actually helps to reduce the strength of the midday sun and complements the gentleness of the composition. I only wish it had more resolution/sharpness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basotxerri --MB-one (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karlsruhe Palace - Christmas illumination.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 12:54:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Lucas 13:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A tiny amount of barrel distortion - the bottom line is not straight. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Llez (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak Support. Would prefer higher resolution/sharpness for an architectural shot, but looks good to me. Nice composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm sorry, but I wish this were sharper, and that the sky wasn't blotchy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with King here --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and King. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, and the composition does not work (uninteresting foreground covers almost half of the image) --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree the opponens. --Milseburg (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and King. -- Karelj (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Rostock asv2018-05 img63 Warnemuende port.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 11:10:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Ships
Info "MS Regal Princess" leaving Warnemünde after sunset ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 11:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support even though far from being tack sharp (I'm guessing shooting conditions didn't help) - Benh (talk) 12:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you were on land it seems. - Benh (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support despite noise and some blown-out areas, since a longer exposure or HDR would not have been possible. One thing that could have made it better: underexpose it at ISO 100 and bring it back up in post, since Sony sensors are ISO-invariant. Shooting at ISO 1000 is essentially throwing away highlights without any reduction in noise (compared to push-processing). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ King and all who says "per King": in fact, the remaining light was really very weak. The picture as it is, is already resulting from maximal possible DR increase in Lightroom. --A.Savin 01:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I have no complaints about the noise as you did what you had to do, you shot this on a full-frame sensor at max aperture and perhaps the slowest shutter speed that freezes the ship. But there is room for improvement in the highlights; I would have given a full support if it were shot at ISO 100 and processed properly in Lightroom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing my point -- if I had taken it with ISO-100, the picture would have been irrevocably underexposed. Sony does excellent job under bad light conditions, but cannot do magic either. Somewhere there is always the end of the line --A.Savin 10:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see you did shadows +100, but exposure is only +0.66. With ISO 100 you would just do exposure +4.00. With highlights at -50 there's room to recover any overbrightened sections. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ISO-4000 Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I like the composition and the light, but there are some technical issues like sharpness and noise. --XRay ^talk 16:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although it looks really nice on first sight, there are too many technical issues and we do have better images in this category. --MB-one (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Ships

File:Rudbeckia occidentalis on Aspen Mountain (91134).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 05:39:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info own work — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would have preferred a slightly longer depth of field, but this is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy. --Hockei (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The very top is unfortunate but overall very nicely done and great subject isolation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient DoF, too noisy --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:2017.06.11.-23-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Stabwanze-Weibchen bei Eiablage.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2019 at 19:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info She came from under the water and moved up on the water plant stem in order to lay her eggs. This is a very rare (maybe the only ;-) ) capture of this scene. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hockei! ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 15:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Cquoi (talk) 13:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Madagascar black-eye (Leptomyrina phidias).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2019 at 21:50:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info The wing span is around 25mm, so the 'height' of this one is about 13mm. It can be found on Madagascar and Réunion. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Full screen size on a 13-inch laptop is already quite a bit larger than life, yet parts of the photo are sharp even at full size. Pretty butterfly, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks sharpness and DoF in my view. The whole wings are out of focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

actually you couldn't see the definition in the wing scales if it was out of focus. Charles (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 legs here and half an antenna in focus. The wings are blurry -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Temple Wat Xieng Thong - Luang Prabang - Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 03:20:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice interplay between the roofs and clouds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per King of Hearts, --Podzemnik (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fortunate lighting. :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 13:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is the temple on the right really diagonal compared to the buildings on the left, or is that the product of some weird, unpleasant perspective? I'm thinking that the buildings should all be aligned in the direction of their depth, but please let me know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very standard perspective. You can compare with that image from Google. Here is a 21 mm focal length, almost the same than this shot at 24 mm, only the angle was different. Not sure the several buildings are perfectly parallel to each other, but they could also, logically a building located more on the left would have shown its right side. The only transformations made from my RAW file were a rotation of 2,9° to level the horizon, and 18% vertical adjustment to fix the vertical lines. From this point my camera is facing the white building, while looking aside the big one, then I don't understand why these buildings should "all be aligned", this is a normal perspective projection, not isometric -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 10:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Photographer 17:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Cquoi (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings

File:Varano del Nilo (Varanus niloticus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 57.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 22:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus), Chobe National Park, Botswana. All by me, Poc o² 22:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nile monitors are beautiful, but I don't like the unsharp leg in the foreground and also find some of the unsharp grasses in in the foreground distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grass over head and tongue spoiled this image, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the grass makes it chaotic! --^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (Talk) 14:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 19:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Travesía del delta del Okavango en makoro, Botsuana, 2018-07-31, DD 08.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2019 at 07:59:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport
Info Crossing the Okavango Delta in mokoro, Botswana. All by me, Poc o² 07:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 07:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many issues. 1. Wrong lighting direction or wrong a point of view. 2. The nose of your boat spoiled the composition. 3. Strong chromatic aberration. 4. Vignetting. I'm sorry my friend and i hope that my review will be useful for the subsequent success in the works. Very friendly -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per George, I'm afraid. -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea but the main problem is the CA and your boat, also I added a cut version note --Photographer 16:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@George Chernilevsky, Colin, and The Photographer: Seeing the tip of my own boat was an attempt to "trasnport" the viewer into the scene (still, I have cropped it as you suggested). My intention in the picture was not to exposure properly the 2 girls pulling the mokoros, as I wanted to lead the eye to the front, to remark the hugness of the Okavango Delta. To stress that and lead the eye there I've crop also a chunk on the left. I also fixed the CA. Poc o² 19:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now, but not enough for FP IMO, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ok, no reply at all and one more oppose refering to the older version, whatever, I take it back. Poc o² 22:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I come back to support

Support, however, too later. --Photographer 02:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steviola Saslonch Tai droc te Val Gherdëina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 13:52:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Trentino-Alto Adige
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp attractive photo that invites me to visit South Tyrol --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice though not extraordinary. A bit dull and maybe too much in the shadow -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly in shadow. I'd be fine if the mountaintops had the reddish hue of the last rays of the sun (because in such cases light has softened and valleys are unavoidably in shadow), but here it's just low-angle winter light, pleasant like golden-hour light but not enough to compensate for the dull foreground. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I acknowledge there are stitching errors in the trees. Will fix it. Thanks for the support--Moroder 07:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurasian Tree Sparrow Head.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 05:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Passeridae_(Sparrows)
Info All by me. I am willing to make any changed or crops necessary to gain the utmost satisfaction and approval. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator and photographer. Hopefully I can complete my personal challenge with this picture :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update — Reduced sharpening artifacts 05:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Support Nice and sharp, good portrait. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Light could perhaps be nicer, but that's quite a closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit small after crop, but still good for FP. Nice quality. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a visible halo-like effect bhind the neck and over the upper back. Also too light methinks. -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's residue from CA cleanup. Thanks for pointing that out. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 00:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going to try to fix that now, hopefully it can be fixed... ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update — Drastically reduced CA cleanup residue as pointed out by Kenny, and slightly increased contrast. 00:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

All past voters, King of Hearts, Ikan Kekek, Martin Falbisoner, Johann Jaritz, Llez, George Chernilevsky, Agnes Monkelbaan, Cayambe, Daniel Case, KennyOMG, you may wish to re-evaluate the image after the latest update. Details are above. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 00:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I changed my mind; it sucks now. :-) Just kidding! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: You got me a little on edge there ;) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 02:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cquoi (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support High level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes

File:Gerania bosci bosci (longhorn beetle) on a coconut (focus stacking).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 10:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Cerambycidae_(Longhorned_Beetles)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not my favourite light and technically not perfect either but still great :) --Podzemnik (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MB-one (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but could maybe bump the contrast slider up a little. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Sheikhlotfolah.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 11:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
Info created and uploaded by Ara9979, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Interesting play of light and shadows with geometrical patterns, but the left corners are unsharp and the file looks downsized (4000 px large only for a camera shooting at 7360 px) -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- per Basile Morin Llez (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spectacularly stunning! Regarding the technical aspect of this photo, if the image is actually downsized, it would be such a shame. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 13:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the most detailed, but interesting composition and geometric shapes. We don't have many FPs of Iran. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We don't have that small a number, either. Check out Category:Iran. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a vast underestimate on my part. I remember Poco a poco's series, but never would have imagined there would be close to 50 of his in there. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Photographer 17:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ahmed Najji ^Talk 21:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Cquoi (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings

File:2017.06.11.-11-Albersbacher Riedwiesen-Rimbach--Grosses Ochsenauge-Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2019 at 17:36:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support better than the two existing FPs of this species. Charles (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are 3 existing FPs of this species, and I think this photo of a mating pair is the best photo of the species, if we ignore the distracting flowers that were too close to be in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like this should be a "delist and replace" nomination. We can't have too many FPs that are so similar, and I feel like this one (by the same author) for instance should be measured against this current nom. They can't both be FP in my view - they're too similar.--Peulle (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are very different to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an argument to delist, but take care: there are many variations of this species. This image, for instance, shows a specimen with no spots on the rear wing underside. Charles (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we should have too many FPs of similar objects such as species variants. I mean, where do we draw the line on similar FPs of a good panorama view? Just take a few steps to the left and so the position is different? Is it enough of a difference for the same butterfly to sit on different flowers, or be in a different light? The lines may be blurred but for me, this is too close. I am going to Oppose this vote as we already have a good existing FP (several, in fact). I might support a nomination to replace that one, but we should not ignore the existence of current FPs and simply promote new ones on top of the existing ones. --Peulle (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, the both pictures of me have complete different compositions. Second, they are not the same butterflies and look very different. Third, this here is a male and the other one is a female. How often are supported very similar compositions of one species from the same photographer especially when they have a different sex (or genter)? Strange views and discussion here about my pictures. --Hockei (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe you could eliminate the cropped flower at the bottom right. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I missed that. Charles (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Trier Meisner (1625).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 15:57:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info Engraved by Eberhard Kieser, published by Daniel Meisner, reproduced from an original copper plate print (1625), uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 (talk) 15:57, 1 Feb. 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Overexposed, especially at the left. I feel like for reproductions of historical drawings, it's fine if it's a completely white textureless background, but if it's highly textured then we should judge the reproduction according to photographic standards. Not opposing though as the overexposure is not egregious, but you definitely do have red channel clipping. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cquoi (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:August-1922-m-mcdonald-a-member-of-lord-woolavingtons-house-party-a-picture-id3432611.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2019 at 16:37:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Driven grouse shooting, Scottish Highlands 1922

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
Info created by (Anonymus) - uploaded by Tilon3 - nominated by Tilon3 -- Tilon3 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tilon3 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Light isn't great. Are these folks famous? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The host (not pictured) of this grouse shot was James Buchanan, 1st Baron Woolavington, a wealthy whisky producer of the early 20th century, the guy pictured on the right is his son-in-law Sir Reginald Macdonald-Buchanan, the guy on the left is a gamekeeper. --Tilon3 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark and only 3 Mpx. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden Gate Park San Francisco December 2016 004.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2019 at 08:26:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shaded foreground doesn't seem to be intended and the chicken looks like it happened to be in the picture. Sure a good picture but for FP it's not spectacular enough for me. --Ermell (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is nice but I don't think exceptional enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Disturbing cars and people. In nice morning or evening light this might work, though. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose duck seems to be possessed by an evil spirit due to the shadow --Photographer 17:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! --Basotxerri (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Statue of Buddha inside Pullahari Monastery(Gumba)-IMG 9188.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2019 at 17:51:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info Statue of Buddha created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia- nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The floor looks dirty and the lanterns are cut. Creative view but doesn't work unfortunately -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC) That would be okay with an immaculate floor like this or this, but here with 50% of the composition being reflection, as a feature surface it gives the feeling to have the nose in the dust (at least in my view) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me it's like a wildlife shot where the background is quite busy in reality but it's OK because it's so out of focus, except here the OOF element is in front rather than in the background. Here the ground is so close that, as far as the dust is concerned, it's practically like someone took a Sharpie to the front element of the lens (which has a surprisingly minimal effect on image quality). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The lattern crop is unfortunate, but this is such a great idea. Love that the reflections are in focus despite the entirely out-of-focus floor because of how optics work; it seems so obvious once you see it and yet rarely has this been done before at FPC. You can't expect a floor to be spotless; it's already impressive that it's clean enough to produce such a clear reflection. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition does not work for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Uoaei1. -- B2Belgium (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition doesn't bother me, but blurred and ghosted monks do. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, unfortunately, per Daniel. Ghosting is such an issue; I've recently been trying out architectural photography and it is very problematic during post-processing and focal stacking. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 13:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tom Enders, ILA 2018, Schönefeld (1X7A5699-2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2019 at 19:33:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info all by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MB-one (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I normally don't shoot portraits, this I why I generally don't bother about them. But this one looks slightly underexposed and I think brightening the background could help to get more contrast towards the person. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very unflattering portrait. He looks exhausted and ill at ease. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see no wow here.--Peulle (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. He really looks like he wants to go take a nap. Also, that light reflecting off his right forehead unfortunately looks a lot like a scar. Daniel Case (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clevelandart 1915.342.2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 06:54:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Gary Kirchenbauer / Cleveland Museum of Art, uploaded by Madreiling, nominated by Yann (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Larger than life reproduction of old jewelery. -- Yann (talk) 06:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support You don't see that every day.--Peulle (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cquoi (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MB-one (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support very detailed, though it needs a good clean. Charles (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:A swamp below the top of Doune Hill, Luss Hills, Scotland.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 20:24:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
Info All by me. I like that the picture shows quite a decent swamp on the top of a mountain (alright, the real top is in the background). Also, it was really windy that day that I had troubles to stand straight - that's why you can see waves formed on a water level. And I like the clouds and autumn colours. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 00:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing landscape, great composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile Morin -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors and leading lines. One way the composition could be even better is if the lines didn't just lead into the center grass, but found some way to connect with the hill in the back. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though this isn't a "swamp". It's a peat bog. After the nomination closes, could you rename the file. The category should be Category:Bogs in the United Kingdom. The Category:Swamps in the United Kingdom could be deleted. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin Hum, now I understand why my Scottish friends were smiling when I said "It's really swampy here". I should have said "boggy"! I guess it's almost as big faux pas as to talk about "lakes" in Scotland instead of "lochs". Anyway, thanks for the vote, I'll rename the file after the nomination's over. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is really germane to the image, but—the difference is more (moor?

) than just a word. A swamp and a bog are different things: the former is basically a drowned forest, which, I grant, this image isn't of, and although nothing in the image or its description says this for certain based on where it is I will agree that it probably is a bog.

But did we really need to delete Category:Swamps in the United Kingdom? I would agree there probably aren't a lot, and I don't see swamps in the images I've perused so far in Category:Wetlands of the United Kingdom, but I don't think that means there are no swamps in the UK, period? From what I've read there used to be more and most of them were drained and filled to create farmland ... but surely some small patches of wet woodlands exist somewhere? Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case I deleted "Swamps in the United Kingdom" because I created the category especially for this picture. There were no other pictures than this one and after I had moved it to "Bogs in the United Kingdom", there was no image left. --Podzemnik (

talk) 06:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik: OK; I didn't realize that we had not had that category prior to this. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't recreate it if someone actually does take some pictures of British swamps. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Love the colors ... it is the visual equivalent of a glass of single-malt on the rocks. Daniel Case (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Daniel Case: Malt on the rocks?! Good Lord, this is just wrong on so, so many levels! Abusing uisge beatha like that is exactly why Scotland had to come up with the maiden... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's nearly as bad as confusing a Scottish peat bog with a swamp :-) Good advice here. -- Colin (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I forgot to add a smiley, Daniel. So I'll better add two of them right away! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since we visited the Glenfiddich distillery when I was 12, and my father became quite taken with it, to the point that for a long time afterward he'd ask for single-malt anywhere we went. And he's always had his on the rocks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 08:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#United_Kingdom

File:Book of Hours (Use of Metz) Fol. 27r, Decorated Initials.tif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 13:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Cleveland Museum of Art/David Brichford - uploaded by Cquoi - nominated by Cquoi -- Cquoi (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cquoi (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have quite a lot of illuminated manuscripts, but this is indeed one of the best. Yann (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful manuscript. Abzeronow (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why not in JPG ? 96 MB is too heavy and long to open -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin: Thank you. I'll take it into account next time. Cquoi (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as due to it being a large .tif I really can't view it a full resolution without downloading it. Daniel Case (

talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Can I change it now without losing the votes received for this photo ? Cquoi (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Mirounga angustirostris calling 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2019 at 20:40:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info all by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 20:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- grendel|khan 20:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hip hip hooray! Daniel Case (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but a bit too bright -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny portrait, but would be even better with more contrast. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Motif has FP-potential, but the technical performace isn´t. Too bright and low contrast as mentioned before. --Milseburg (talk) 12:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 15:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg --Charles (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Milseburg -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info This is a levels- and gamma-adjusted version which looks a bit more contrasty; if it's the winner, I'll move it over the original. grendel|khan 19:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This version is slightly overprocessed. In any case, the light was not optimum, then you'll never get it perfect. What makes the picture great is really the face itself, that speaks very well to humans . So, to improve your light, I think you should consider an intermediate process between this alternative and the first one above. Overlaying these 2 layers on Photoshop with 50% transparency gives quite a good result (or compromise) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Preferred over original. A blend as suggested by Basile would be equally as good, up to you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support better than original. --Yann (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support ZellmerLP (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Cquoi (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

The chosen alternative is: File:Mirounga angustirostris calling 1 edit.jpg

File:Paul Maurou - Poster for Edmond Audran's Gillette de Narbonne.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 17:41:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Paul Maurou - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Unknown opera, I think, but that's not important when the poster itself is so nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Cquoi (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Restoration seems to have made it more beautiful. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:View north from Ben Lawers, Scotland.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 20:41:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
Info All by me. It's a view north from Ben Lawers, Scotland. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support cool shot --^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (Talk) 09:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:36, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive and interesting, excellent conditions, especially for Scotland. Although some do not like extreme formats, but I would have liked it if the panorama had continued on the right and left. Why are not there 360 °? --Milseburg (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Milseburg I could have done 360 panorama but 1) I'm not really sure how to handle the light while shooting 360 and 2) I'm not a big fan of 360 panoramas. That's a bit too much for me. To me, ideal format of panorama is something like this. My nomination here is barely 180, more likely around 120 degrees panorama. Yes, conditions that day were perfect. Lot of sun and fog, quite rare for the Scottish winter. --Podzemnik (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have liked if the fog was better lit with sun. It almost seems like the right side has yet to wake up :-). -- Colin (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great shot. MartinD (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#United_Kingdom

File:Street musician in Brussels Central Station (DSCF7054).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2019 at 23:11:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
Info by User:Trougnouf
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very soulful-looking violin student, nice background. Motion blur is appropriate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too blurry at full size. Not only the musician, but also the foreground with the sign. Motion blur would be forgivable in interior, but here the picture really needs to be downsized to offer an acceptable quality. Unfortunately, it's already a very large view, thus the main subject would become extremely small. But the facial expression is striking -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile.--Peulle (talk) 07:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Basile, unfortunately. Some CA as well. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It may have technical imperfections, but I do like it, overall. MartinD (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bangladeshi four years old girl smiling (01).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2019 at 11:37:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Moheen - uploaded by Moheen - nominated by Moheen -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 11:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but this just looks like a nice photo from a personal family album. I don't see why it is b&w and it isn't particularly sharp. It is usually best to photograph people from the same height as they are: here we are looking down and the forehead and hair dominate. The background is a bit distracting. She's a pretty girl, but photographically it isn't exceptional and the educational value is lowish as the subject isn't notable. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin.--Peulle (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1 --El Grafo (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, and I feel impelled to mention that using "self-photographed" for people implies a selfie, whereas the little girl didn't actually photograph herself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it doesn't look like it will pick up enough support after all these opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean-Baptiste Singry - Joséphine Mainvielle-Fodor.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2019 at 13:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Jean-Baptiste Singry - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cquoi (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Silbersee III -- 2019 -- 2993.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2019 at 15:38:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much minimal (without resulting minimalist) for me, sorry. --Harlock81 (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don't mind the composition but it could be sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Harlock81 --El Grafo (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. --XRay ^talk 07:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Torminbrücke -- 2019 -- 2857.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2019 at 15:33:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark. Nothing special here in my view, and the reflecting lights are harsh -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile; also severe posterization on river reflections. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination You're right, good, but not a FPC. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 06:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leopardo (Panthera pardus) devorando un antílope, parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-26, DD 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2019 at 19:22:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Leopard (Panthera pardus) devouring an antilope, Kruger National Park, South Africa. All by me, Poc o² 19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leopardo (Panthera pardus) devorando un antílope, parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-26, DD 07.jpg taken four minutes later. -- Colin (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Colin, for pointing that out. It was my mistake not to mention that myself. Still, I wonder whether the fact that between both images where taken 4 minutes after each other is a reason not to consider it a valid nom. The motif is of course the same, but I was there over one hour and this nom reflects the special moment when the leopard with bloody snout was looking towards me. Also the crop is much tigther and the position of the kill is pretty different. In fact, I like this image much more than the other one. --Poc o² 21:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Poco, almost all us reviewers are also photographers. We know that on a shoot we take lots of photos. And some have this special quality and some have that special quality and it can sometimes be hard to guess which one is the best. But this isn't QI and finest is finest. Many reviewers and nominators do actually take the time to look at the FP category, the image categories, and compare with other images already uploaded and already awarded. As we've discussed before, you require more review comments to achieve a gold star than any other photographer here, by some distance. Simply because you expect us to filter out the "meh" and "done already". Multiple times you have nominated photos from the same shoot without mention or apparent embarassment. We could spend all day trying to work out if one image's qualities (looking towards you, but clearly disturbed by the photographer) are better than another image's qualities (eating the kill, apparently undisturbed). The point of "finest" is to pick one. And, with the images from a shoot, that's your job as nominator.

This year you have nominated 13 images, only 6 pass, 5 withdrawn, and received over 120 review comments and votes by other people. But in turn, you have reviewed only 6 images for other people, in one 15 minute interval. You are expecting us all to take greater care to review your photos than you spend yourself on your own photos, never mind the miniscule effort you spend on others' photos. Most other Commons-experienced photographers here have very high pass rates, some are 100%. If you aren't willing to help select "the finest on Commons" by revewing your own photos better, and doing your share to review others' photos, then why should we waste our time with your careless nominations. -- Colin (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There may be differences but I like the other one better.--Peulle (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too similar for existing FP. Procedural oppose --A.Savin 11:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The other one had the body dangling down, which was more dramatic. Daniel Case (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose because it is too similar to the other one. I might consider supporting a delist-and-replace, though. --El Grafo (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, taking it back. Thanks for the novel, Colin, but definitely no the right place for you blog posts --Poc o² 21:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beer bottles 2018 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2019 at 23:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 23:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 23:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support What I like most of the image is the idea. However, I think the bottles could have been lined up somewhat better or more exact. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 08:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Bergtocht van Alp Farur (1940 meter) via Stelli (2383 meter) naar Gürgaletsch (2560 meter) 010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 06:16:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena #Switserland
Info Mountain trip from Alp Farur (1940 meter) via Stelli (2383 meter) to Gürgaletsch (2560 meter). Mist drifts and ever-changing light give me an extra dimension to this photo. Alternating clouds and mist play around the mountain peaks.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Dramatic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic, strong scene. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the grass in the foreground, it's distracting. --MB-one (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Has the wow-factor for me. MartinD (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Podzemnik. --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Pörtschach Halbinsel Landspitz Schiffslandesteg 08122018 5596.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 10:18:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Restful, beautiful colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not precisely a shocker, but nonetheless limpid and aesthetically felicitous. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 13:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nice shot but the people spoil the image. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basotxerri: just a friendly suggestion-remark here: maybe putting an oppose in the midst of a nomination that will surely garner FP status, isn't the most ideal thing to do? It would just delay the process and may cause minor inconveniences... Would you want someone to do that to your nomination? The Golden Rule, man... 😬 Cheers, by the way; it's your decision and I can't change your opinion. 😁 :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @GerifalteDelSabana: Thank you for your very friendly support. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @GerifalteDelSabana: Thank you for your comment. Is my vote sensible in the way you argue? Of course not. But: this is my vote and I've said what I had to say because it's an obvious flaw on this image. IMO FPC isn't a machinery for making featured pictures the fastest way possible, it's a place where opinions on images are published without any social pressure. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basotxerri: You do have a point there; I see where you're coming from. :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 08:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 11:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tournasol7 (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 21:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rbrechko (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Austria

File:2018-12-20-Turkish pastry with cream filling-1253.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2019 at 18:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink
Info created by Superbass - uploaded by Superbass - nominated by Superbass -- Superbass (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Superbass (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. Adding the Turkish name of the pastry to the file description would increase the value of the file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. :) I like the colours.--Peulle (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cquoi (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original and nice detail Poc o² 22:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 13:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I prefer the pink one (wouldn't mind featuring both). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree: That one should also be nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink

File:Aussicht vom Spitznack.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2019 at 17:49:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info Perspective (180°) from the Viewpoint Spitznack over the Rhine Gorge between Oberwesel and the Lorelei. -- Milseburg (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The barge makes a nice add-on -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting and colors are rather flat, and the resolution is not particularly high either. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad light. Subject not spectacular. Low resolution for a landscape panorama. Btw, it doesn't look close to 180°. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the others.--Peulle (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; I also find the crop rather tight and the bushes up front a little distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Rbrechko (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it shows very nicely how narrow and curved the Rhine is at this point, and how hard is must be to navigate your barge safely through the currents. MartinD (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others above. --Yann (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hippopotamus in Chobe National Park 07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2019 at 17:03:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, nice documentation but not exceptional to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There might have been an FP here since it looks like the hippos are having some issues with each other, but not composed like this. Daniel Case (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The one is the middle has a funny look, but the light is dull. --Yann (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ladakh Range 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2019 at 16:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Someone else may be able to put their finger on why, but I don't like the quality of this picture. It's not just that it's not very sharp; there's a weird look that's probably a result of your processing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavily downsampled: from 18 Mpx to less 9 Mpx. Yann (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene offered by the two mountains is really fascinating, albeit the low quality doesn't allow to support the nomination --Harlock81 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heartbroken oppose This is the sort of thing you really want to support: such a well-framed landscape that you wish you could photograph yourself. Unfortunately, the downsampling ruins it when you look at it at full-res; the forest in the foreground is so unsharp that it looks like one of those shaken-camera images that were such a thing a couple of years ago. Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Notre-Dame-du-Puy church of Figeac 26.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2019 at 14:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice enough but doesn't compete at FP. See the other examples in the FP category for comparison. There's also some strange lighting effect in the corners. Has the blown light been reduced to grey? -- Colin (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would crop the right side for symmetry reasons --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cropped, Tournasol7 (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pusula solandri 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2019 at 17:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice texture Poc o² 22:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 04:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Mosaic Boxer crab (Lybia tessellata) (14387916576).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2019 at 11:02:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info created by Rickard Zerpe - uploaded - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral opaque colors~~, is not sharp enough~~ --Photographer 17:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a submarine photo of a 2 cm wide (and wild) subject, tha is not unsharp at all IMO. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I thought that this was a photo in an aquarium. --Photographer 18:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support; needs a tad bit more vibrance, don't ya think? ;) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 01:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Gerifalte. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Cute but dark, dull colors and blurry background, compared to this picture -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colorful Transparent wings.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2019 at 15:27:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info:A dragonfly resting on a branch (as a part of Wiki Loves Earth 2018) -- Created & uploaded by Mmhs.bd - nominated by Noroi -- (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der fliegende isländer (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice wings, but the composition is not quite an FP to me, and also, I think the species probably should be identified for a nomination at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. The background is distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; also bad crops and noise. Nice idea though ... would make a cool album cover. Daniel Case (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crowned lemur (Eulemur coronatus) female 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2019 at 10:50:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info An endangered lemur that is restricted to the Northern tip of Madagascar. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice face but ~~one leg~~ the tail is cut at the bottom and the flashlight is not natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Basile Morin (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Daniel Case Frank Schulenburg Tail chopped off not leg! Charles (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosa 'Nostalgie' (d.j.b) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 05:53:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Rosa #Family Rosaceae
Info Every rose lover is very enthusiastic about this blooming rose. The enchanting scent and the beautiful color combination cream white with cherry red make this rose unique.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems about as good as a rose picture can be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the direct flash the picture lacks charm. Wow effect I can't see here.--Ermell (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell. -- Karelj (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ermell, Uoaei1, and Karelj: * Comment For clarification I have never used a flash with this camera. That is therefore an incorrect assumption!--Famberhorst (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. That is wrongly seen and interpreted by me. But that doesn't change anything about the direct light.--Ermell (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again per Ermell --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True. Exif says: "Flash did not fire, compulsory flash suppression." Please check EXIF before making assumptions. --Cart (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--MB-one (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, if the highlights on the flower are dialed down a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I still think the original brightness was fine, but this is perhaps better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comments.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light on leaves and shadow from flower are not good for FP. --Rbrechko (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Variegated golden frog (Mantella baroni) Ranomafana.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2019 at 11:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians
Info This 25mm long frog is also known as the Madagascar poison frog. This is a photostacked image taken using the Helicon Soft FB Tube attached to a 100mm macro lens on a monopod. The tube shifts the point of focus by a few millimetres each shot when you use burst mode. The seven images were then manually aligned and processed using Helicon Focus 7 software. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly blurry, the legs have been forgotten in the process, but the main parts are in focus -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Der Holländer (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)Double vote deleted. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support But per Basile Poc o² 22:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours. It's a pity that not everything is in perfect focus but considering the subject and the conditions, I think it's a really good shot.--Podzemnik (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians

File:Massif de Lherz 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 14:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you can crop a bit more on the sides. The far extremes on both the left and the right are not the sharpest, and the right side is just a hair overexposed (even if it wasn't, having a bright object on the edge is generally not a great idea). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support — King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:52, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment King of; thanks for your review. Cropped, Tournasol7 (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it´s tilted cw and I´ve checked this with a calkulated panorama which is based on the coordinates you gave. The right part dont have to be so much lower then the left one. Futher more, I think the motif isn´t really outstanding enough and the conditions have been too hazy for an FP. --Milseburg (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as they commonly say - breathtaking --^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (Talk) 14:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 22:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so here no one cares when an issue can be seen on the thumbnail... Per Milseburg. - Benh (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France

File:Safety Last (1923).webm, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2019 at 14:52:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animated
Info created by Fred C. Newmeyer and Sam Taylor, uploaded by Racconish, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A classic of comedy. Great quality in the file too. Abzeronow (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good copy. — Racconish ^💬 17:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, a great print. I haven't seen the entire film yet. "Animated" is surely the wrong category, though: This is a silent film but not an animated one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the movies are in this category. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Is there a subcategory for animation? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually I suppose we'll create one for animated films as opposed to live-action. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Colin (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support because we should. Daniel Case (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 04:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Ulm Münster Westturm Helm innen 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 15:15:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
Info Spire of the west tower (161.53 metres (530.0 ft)) of Ulm Minster, Ulm, Baden-Württemberg, Germany – interior view with spiral staircase to the viewing platform (143 metres (469 ft)). All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive shot. --MB-one (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Total chaotic. --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty interesting to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is very harsh, making the contrasts too strong. All these dark parts lack detail. The subtle shapes and elements are lost in the hard shadows that create conflicts. Finally too busy -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile --Ermell (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as ~~mb1~~ said. --^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (Talk) 09:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Target360YT: but mb1 supports! --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uoaei1: oopsie daisie, i mistook the name lol. i meant karelj... --^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (Talk) 14:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose doesn't work for me. --El Grafo (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- It is not chaotic, it is Gothic Llez (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Llez. --Milseburg (talk) 11:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carraca lila (Coracias caudata), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 30.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2019 at 22:37:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Lilac-breasted roller (Coracias caudata), Chobe National Park, Botswana. All by me, Poc o² 22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moderate Support - The bird is beautiful and beautifully photographed. My only reservation is that it has competition in the background to the left of and above its head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the background is distracting but the bird is good --^∞😃 Target360YT 😃^∞ (Talk) 14:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Target360YT. -- Karelj (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Torn between support for the beautiful subject and oppose for the extreme (green) CA. -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, KennyOMG, the CA is gone now. Poc o² 19:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful bird! --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Target360YT --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question The Photographer proposed a different crop, any takes on that? --Poc o² 18:53, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I might prefer it but would have to see it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Info Ok, so here is the alternative version with a tighter crop Poc o² 21:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek, George Chernilevsky, Martin Falbisoner, Target360YT, and KennyOMG: @Tournasol7, Uoaei1, Podzemnik, and Llez: could you please, vote about this version, too? thank you Poc o² 21:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A bit better, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me, the previous version was FP but this one is even better. --Podzemnik (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Podzemnik. --Tournasol7 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is clearer and therefore the image is better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support even better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally I'd agree that the background is distracting, but here the blue and purple on the bird are enough to distinguish it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support CA is not gone but opened in PS, looked at it 50%, barely if any visible. Based on that would've supported either version. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 08:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better crop. Charles (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Photographer 01:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

The chosen alternative is: File:Carraca_lila_(Coracias_caudata),_parque_nacional_de_Chobe,_Botsuana,_2018-07-28,_DD_30.jpg

File:Castle of Chenonceau 41.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 08:06:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Beautiful, and certainly far superior to the existing FP in its category, File:Chateau de Chenonceau 2008E.jpg, which has severe posterization and should be nominated for de-listing. But I would love it if you could get the top of the chateau (by the way, the English word for this building) to be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overcooked and harsh light. I don't think the hard sun here has benefited from increased local contrast and strong sharpening. Btw, I think also there may be a camera shake or mirror slap issue as there is a double line round some high contrast edges (see the dark edge of the largest arch, and some of the birds, and the edge of some other dark shadows). This may be the cause of Ikan's complaint, which won't be helped by further sharpening. I think it would look better if not so strongly processed (at preview/browser size it just screams "Clarity" to me). See File:Schloss Chenonceau.JPG for a QI with softer light and more natural processing. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose A shot I don't think any of us could have resisted the opportunity to take, particularly given the delightfully impressionistic reflection, and I think it could have worked even given the light, but when you look closely, especially at the left side of the castle, you see everything Colin saw. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ouddorpse-Reddingsbrigade-02-2018.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2019 at 17:37:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

House of the Ouddorp life-guards (Ouddorpse Reddingsbrigade) at the beach of Ouddorp

o

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
Info all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really nice light and colors but the shadow in the lower right ruins it for me (and even if the shadow weren't there, the mound is distracting as it obscures the path and part of the pole). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts, thanks for your comment. Imho all shadows direct to the main motive - even the shadow of the climbing frame for childs at the very right. I tried to integrate the inevitable shadows into the composition to help the motive. For an overview about the scenery, see File:Strandpaviljoen-Paal-10-Ouddorp.jpg --Tuxyso (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I understand that you didn't just randomly leave a shadow without noticing - however, to the extent that it contributes to the composition, the leading lines lead to the pole on the right with nothing to bring us back to the main subject IMO. As a whole, I would say the image converges on a point which is too far to the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nice picture, but in view of yesterday's discussion, I feel impelled to ask you whether you downsampled the picture and whether you'd offer a full-size picture as the nominated one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only cropped from a 24Mpx sensor. I will not reopen the discussion here which has nothing to do with the nomination. Please comment on the photo or leave. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an appropriate question. Your rudeness doesn't well dispose me to vote for the picture, which is what I was planning to do, barring downsampling. You opened yourself up to that question always being relevant to your nominations. You would do well to answer it calmly, and I will vote once I'm in a better frame of mind. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your clarification below. Appreciated, though I wish you had not responded so sharply here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice, interesting composition, including the shadows. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The rubbish bins are very unfortunate and central, and the shadow distracting. Although the light is nice, the subject itself isn't amazing enough to me for wow at FP. I prefer the File:Strandpaviljoen-Paal-10-Ouddorp.jpg view (though at FP I'd be expecting a stitched panorama rather than a heavy crop). I also note that "Please comment on the photo or leave." is extremely rude. Ikan was commenting on the photo which is quite low resolution for a landscape image. As a forum for selecting "the finest" images on Commons, the photo, the nomination itself and other review comments are all open for discussion. FP Commons:Image guidelines ask that images are not downsampled, and since this photo is only 75% of the size of the camera's resolution, that is a fair question to ask. Better technique would have rewarded us with a 24MP image rather than a 14MP image, if this is merely a 2:3 crop. Tuxyso, I think you are grumpy at being called out for pixel peeping, and should also naturally expect that if you do pixel peep review, then other reviewers will not accept any hint of downsizing from your own nominations. -- Colin (talk) 09:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your comment. For the case you've not noticed: a) Ikan and I are fine again after some clarifications. b) I have never asked for downscaling as I have also clarified --Tuxyso (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your "clarifications" are nothing of the sort, just political games. Note Ikan's comment above about your sharp tone, which doesn't sound "fine again" at all. I'm not interested in folk who just play games with words to try to excuse themselves when they have done something bad. Pixel peeping reviews are bad. Being rude to reviewers who enquire about downsizing is bad. Unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per colin --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain your decline, S. DÉNIEL? Colin's statement was imho not related to the photo but to his personal perception of my behavior. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I'm agree with the first part of the comment : The first plan with a lot of things disturbing. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - This comment was by all means related to the photo, I would say --A.Savin 16:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Karelj (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tuxyso (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue eye Albania 2018 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 19:55:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seriously oversharpened --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC) Ikan you are right, it might have been better to say "this photo is seriously overprocessed", far from FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't have Michiel's vocabulary, but parts of the picture look strange to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small and not very well rendered.--Peulle (talk) 11:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without even going to full res it seems overexposed. Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Karelj (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halifax Town Hall Victoria Hall.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 13:12:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created & uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous. I tried to "fix" the perspective "issue" at home but it seems it's only the floor not aligned with the ceiling. - Benh (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

my attempt at fixing. We loose a bit of the sides. ~~I've also compressed much more (I don't think it needs to be this big in bytes size)~~. - Benh (talk) 13:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Impressive motive, but imho WB is completely off (strong orange/yellow cast) and overall images looks overexposed. Did you use HDR? It seems that your colors do not represent the lightning situation as it is in the hall, see for example File:C19 interior 070.jpg / File:C19_interior_037.jpg: In reality the upper part of the hall seems to be not illuminated as the lower part. Additionaly there are remarkable CAs at the weapon on the floor and on the outer window positons - did you use a extreme shift position of your lens? Normally the TS-E17mm should perform better. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly an interesting hall, but the render of this photo looks totally artificial. Overprocessed, with absolutely no shadow, and yes also overexposed. Strange appearance IMO, and technical issues -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, need WB, Overexposed and lack of contrast --Photographer 18:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso and the Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile, sorry. --Aristeas (talk) 15:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elefantes africanos de sabana (Loxodonta africana), delta del Okavango, Botsuana, 2018-07-31, DD 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2019 at 21:57:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info Silhouette of two african bush elephants (Loxodonta africana) during a crossing along the Okavango Delta in a mokoro, Botswana. All by me, Poc o² 21:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The composition doesn't add up to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Tuxyso (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Change to neutral, I prefer the previous composition, especially the third elephant who looks into the opposite direction - the third elephant at the very right is cropped in the new cut. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too messy in my view, cluttered bushes on the right and too much space left and top -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I will change if the photo is cut, (I added a note) --Photographer 18:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, The Photographer, cropped, FYI @Ikan Kekek, Tuxyso, and Basile Morin: Poc o² 20:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poc In the alteration history you will find the cut version that I suggest, much better than the current one that looks like a square. That is just my opinion, take care by your self and excellent shoot. --Photographer 20:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, The Photographer, now it should be pretty close to your suggestion --Poc o² 22:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the changes, its was just my opinion and its sure that someone could have another opinion. The too-black elephant does not really bother me because I know it's natural lighting, it creates a peaceful environment --Photographer 22:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is still not convincing to me, because I find the bushes distracting. For this kind of picture where everything is in the shapes (dark silhouettes only, no colors, no volumes, no textures), you need a very striking composition IMO, otherwise it's not exceptional enough as FPs should be -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something the feeling with a image is something personal, in this case I like the composition --Photographer 01:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Tremendous improvement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems unbalanced to me. --MB-one (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MB-one. Daniel Case (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 21:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:MosObl SVO Airport asv2018-08 img3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2019 at 01:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Interior of Moscow Sheremetyevo International Airport, new Terminal B, departure level, non-restricted area ------ all by A.Savin --A.Savin 01:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 01:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent wide angle representation, maybe a bit noise on right an the man walking is disturbing --Photographer 01:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the reflections on the ground are too strong, which weakens the coherence of the composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I find it a bit too chaotic. The roof doesn't have the elegance of some buildings. The man on the right seems a bit squashed vertically and extended horizontally, by the wide-angle. -- Colin (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, just too much going on, per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MB-one (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eugène Du Faget - Costume designs for Les Huguenots - 2. Julie Dorus-Gras as Marguerite, Adolphe Nourrit as Raoul, and Cornélie Falcon as Valentine.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 19:36:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Eugène Du Faget - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 20:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. Looks like a watercolor. Do you agree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: I really should have copied that over from the Gallica description. Unless my French is way off, you're right. ("aquarelle") Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, aquarelle is watercolor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Mattheis Fritz Quant.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2019 at 09:01:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media#Others
Info Created by Fritz Quant (1919) - reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely drawing and a good quality reproduction. But what is "Source = private archive"? Did you actually take the original drawing and scanned it? --Podzemnik (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Indeed, that's what I did. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the explanation. --Podzemnik (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Baby Goat in Margarita Island, Venezuela.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 02:33:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla
Info created by Beria - uploaded by Beria - nominated by -- Photographer 02:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Photographer 02:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like this. The ear is a bit out of focus because Beria wanted to make sure the rest of the face was in focus. I like the background, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 11:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MB-one (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the goat looks pensive. Daniel Case (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla

File:Vases 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 09:36:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Fitindia - uploaded by Fitindia - nominated by Fitindia -- Fit India 09:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator-- Fit India 09:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the artwork behind is too much to be Commons:De minimis. Looking at your other recent uploads, I suggest you ask an admin knowledgeable about copyright to review them. -- Colin (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the reflection on the glass covering the artwork. --MB-one (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The full-size image is rotated 90 degrees. I wonder how this has reached QI status with this issue. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at it at that size it was fine. Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a browser issue. It is upright also for me on my current computer. --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting idea but unsharp.

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.17.-16-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Sumpf-Storchschnabel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 13:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Salicyna (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little rough at the edges, so to speak. But nice colors and well composed. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Bird Tongue.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2019 at 17:58:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Prosthetic Head - uploaded by Prosthetic Head - nominated by Prosthetic Head -- Prosthetic Head (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Prosthetic Head (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good QI/VI but I think the feathers aren't sharp enough for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Prosthetic Head, why do you sell this picture on Shutterstock and give it for free on Commons ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin: Hi, I do this with a lot of my pictures. For many uses people don't want to have to attribute or sharealike, so in those cases I think it's fair that they can pay a small amount. For those who are happy to attribute and share any derivatives on the same terms I am of course happy for my images to be used freely. I hope this makes sense? --Prosthetic Head (talk) 09:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. --Yann (talk) 10:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks like a chick in the jungle :-) Nice open beak and good focus, but the background is cluttered -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would prefer a quadratic crop --Llez (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: "quadratic crop" = square? I can have a go at a square crop centred on the bird. --Prosthetic Head (talk) 09:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It could be a bit sharper. But I like the colours. --Hockei (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed picture that looks kind of real to me. But I think it should be moved to a better name like "Female Southern Masked Weaver with tongue out, South Africa". @Prosthetic Head After this nomination is over, can you please rename the file to a more specific name? --Podzemnik (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Podzemnik: I agree, it should be renamed & I will request a renaming once this nomination is closed. Thanks. --Prosthetic Head (talk) 10:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Champ-de-Mars - boule (Colmar) (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2019 at 13:08:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info Lighting in Champ-de-Mars in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France).
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 13:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is it governed by the FoP in France (I think at the lightning of the Eiffel tower)? --Llez (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good question, I do not know. Gzen92 ^[discuter] 07:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just a guess here, but I think this type of lighting is probably generic enough not to violate French law. I'm not a lawyer, though. Anyway, very nice photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral; lovely image but I'm not making any legal judgements. Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 086.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 13:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MB-one (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful photo!-- Salicyna (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool, thank you Matti! Poc o² 17:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The harsh midday lighting is perfect for this scene. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I got quite thirsty looking at the picture. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. A bit of sharpening halo on the branches, but acceptable for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Dülmen, Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche, Altar -- 2019 -- 3113-7.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 16:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment perfect composition, great symmetry. but IMHO the depth of field is too shallow here - farer candle and cross are unsharp. Probalby a better result had been possible by adjusting the parameters focal length, distance to altar, larger f-value, different focus point. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per most of Tuxyso's remarks. I don't find the DoF too shallow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think DoF is an artistic choice here; you can make everything in focus at f/22 (or by focus stacking), or let the background naturally fade out to make the altar pop. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting cobwebs in the altar interspaces.--Ermell (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 09:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. --Aristeas (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany

File:Dülmen, Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche, Innenansicht -- 2019 -- 3022-6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 16:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diliff is gone but we have XRay --Photographer 20:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very harmonious. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question What it actually is that reflects the lights? Is it a pool? --Podzemnik (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph will answer your question: File:Dülmen, Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche, Innenansicht -- 2018 -- 1317.jpg. --XRay ^talk 10:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this an old church bell used top down as holy water font? --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

;-) No, the size may be possible, but it is stone. --XRay ^talk 12:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay So it's a stone with holy water? I think it'd be good to write it in the description of the file. At least to me, it's quite unusual to see such a big holy water fountain in the middle of the church. Anyway, it's a totally well done picture with a great wow factor so big

Support from me. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a stoup or a baptismal font, hopefully the correct translation. I'll ask and append it to the description. --XRay ^talk 15:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I also know of walk-in baptisteries / fonts, see for example: File:Maria-Magdalena-Kirche-Wattenscheid-Taufstelle.jpg. During the christening the priest walks together with the child being christened inside the font. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The church was built from 1936 to 1938 and partially destroyed during the World War II. The chapel wasn't rebuild. The original baptismal font (of the chapel) is located at the end of the church near the crypt. The stoup is located at the door, but unused. So I'm not sure, baptismal font or stoup. But I'm living in Dülmen. It's no problem to get an answer. --XRay ^talk 17:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stoup. I'll add this to the categories and the description. --XRay ^talk 19:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Charles (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany

File:Jeanneke Pis, Brussels, Belgium (DSCF4010).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 16:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Fountains
Info by User:Trougnouf
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a funny Belgium sculpture, but the bottom is for me not sharp enough for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel; I also find the plants in the background distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 11:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trees during the sunset in Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, Sidney Island, BC, Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 18:44:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
Info All by me. We already have the pictures of a pier from the same evening but I figured this picture shows something else so it's distinctive enough. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful clouds --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The stray branches on the right are a little distracting but otherwise very good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts I've removed them. --Podzemnik (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice light but not a spectacular composition. The bush on the right looks intrusive, especially the twigs in the clouds. With this large angle the tree on the left appears distorted -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Basile Morin I've removed the branches on the right, I hope it's better now. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Canada

File:Schleswig 25 Pfennig 1920.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 22:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info Issued in 1920 by the Town of Schleswig, reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Temporary wooden footbridge leading to the city of Luang Prabang.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 03:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Photographer 01:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Gnosis (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Salicyna (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Untitled by Sohrab Sepehri (10) v2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2019 at 03:28:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media#Others
Info created by Sohrab Sepehri - uploaded and nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 03:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 03:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More info: Sepehri's paintings break auction record in Iran. Hanooz 03:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality and we don't have a lot of modern paintings -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile, with the addition that it's great to have non-Western modern art, too. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - If you didn't know where the painter was from, would you be able to tell that it was "non-Western"? Isn't this just international-style abstract art of the 1960s that happens to have been painted by an Iranian man? I happen to dislike this piece, but I note that it was painted in 1969, so since it's still highly regarded by the art establishment 50 years later (boy does that reckoning make me feel old, as I actually remember seeing art shows in Soho in 1969, when I was 4), I feel conflicted about the thought of voting against a feature on the basis that the art says nothing to me. I'll say, nevertheless, that this would certainly be a useful VI, regardless. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gnosis (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cattle and Tatry mountains.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2019 at 15:54:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the light doesn't work for me.--Peulle (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the moo-d . Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Attached, it doesn't seem really at ease -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pyrit 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2019 at 07:25:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_Minerals#Minerals
Info Pyrite (Fool's Gold). The maximum diameter of this specimen is 52 millimetres (2.0 in). All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Considering how small this pyrite crystal is, I think it deserves the star. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan - the lighting could have been a little bit better, though.--Peulle (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 08:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cquoi (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting and large areas in shadow, where more details could have been shown. – Lucas 20:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Lucasbosch but detail is great, it deserves the star --Poc o² 22:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could be added a reference scale for the dimensions? --Harlock81 (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The size of this piece is given in the image description. According to the rules, no scale will be added to the image. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_Minerals#Minerals

File:St. Peter's Square - north colonnade.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 14:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 14:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff 14:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I get what you're going for here with the composition, but it just doesn't work for me with the bottom cut off. Also a bit small. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, It is about the curve of the cornice and the statues alongside the curve. Together with the dynamism of the sky to see the flight of the Spiritual Thing, strongly defined by the curve. Below, We need only the verticals, as an abstract tool, to add a strong support of the movement. The cut off bases are not needed here, imo. --MrPanyGoff 08:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice idea but it just doesn't work the way you seem to have wanted it to. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Close-up of Chrysomya (Old World blow fly) on a green leaf.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2019 at 01:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family_:_Calliphoridae_(Blow_Flies)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When I saw this in QIC, I thought I might also see it here. The closeup of the fly is impressive, though I might prefer a much tighter crop to eliminate more of the blurred background (I'm not completely sure, though, and would have to see it). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding level of detail. Also like the crop. It gives some context. --MB-one (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MB-one --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Good detail but quite a lot of stacking issues. The antennae are a blurred mess even in browser-size view. -- Colin (talk) 10:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family_:_Calliphoridae_(Blow_Flies)

File:Nikon D850.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 22:22:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With studio shots of cameras, there can be a pretty fine line between QI and FP. But if you compare this to File:Sony A77 II.jpg, some differences emerge: 1) the Sony is lit in a way that makes it look dramatic, while the current picture has flat lighting; 2) f/13 was used on the Sony vs. f/8 here, resulting in more depth of field, and for me the shutter release here is not acceptably in focus; 3) the Sony has a higher level of contrast and "pop." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but why should be this image "dramatic"? Wikipedia is a project to build an encyplopedia and not a taboild. As can seen here Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Optical_devices most of the FP are not dramatic. A lack of contrast or focus I can't locate. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the depth of the field that make some prominent areas are out of focus, poor lighting that generates little contrast, the camera is dirty. In a perfectly controlled environment, as this is the case, one expects to see better image quality --Photographer 01:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poor lightning though all is lightend well? A few dustspots you call the camera is dirty? Very joky. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others, particularly the drab grey background, shallow DOF and all the dirt. You could have wiped the camera clean and blown off remaining dust (or remove it digitally). You could have performed a focus stack to get all relevant areas of the subject in focus and not blurry. You could have controlled the background better using extra light and/or a translucent surface and/or post-processing. A clean white background makes it also more suitable for use in articles, see this example: File:2017 Nikon D5500.jpg. The pure encyclopedic value gets more consideration at the Wikipedia FP candidates, here at Commons FPC we tend to focus more on photographic merit. As a last note, the file name is a bit too generic for my taste, at least the lens should have been mentioned. – Lucas 10:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; shallow DoF and CA. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rosa Mary Rose 2018-09-21 1428.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2019 at 21:00:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by Salicyna - uploaded by Salicyna - nominated by Salicyna -- Salicyna (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Salicyna (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just in time for Valentine's Day. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3134-9.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:50:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 07:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 07:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The horizon looks a bit bent, I'd check your stitching. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I should buy a good stitching software ... I am dissatisfied. Thanks you for your review. --XRay ^talk 15:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suricata suricatta - Zoo Karlsruhe 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 18:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is close up and detailed. Possibly over-sharpened and contrasty. Not sure the colour temperature is right as it looks a bit too yellow/golden for midday. I don't think this is a particularly flattering photo of a meerkat who is a messy and has some eye gunk. The head direction, telephoto lens and dof all mean we lose any depth information about the face, which is certainly not flat. I'm also not getting a sense of character from the portrait, which is often present in meerkats (whether real or imaginary in our eye). Meerkats are an easy shot in zoos, so I think we should expect a great portrait. -- Colin (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very good photo of the meerkat, but I find the level of contrast with the background insufficient for it to be a great photo. Sadly, since at least yesterday (2 days ago, I think), Commons searches for FPs, QIs or VIs have stopped working again, so I can't easily find other FPs of meerkats, but nevertheless, this is my view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Info New version uploaded --Llez (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still not wowing me, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Some technical issues that could have been alleviated by sufficient wow factor. As this is a zoo shot and not taken in the wild, though, the wow is weaker for me.--Peulle (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the unsharpness, a consequence of the shallow DoF. A shame, because of the apparent slight smirk on the meerkat's face. Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puesta de sol, Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-28, DD 186-188 HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 21:22:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info View of the Alaska Range during sunset from Tok, Alaska, USA. All by me, Poc o² 21:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice but could you please reduce CA? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not sharp enough. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark forest in the foreground and the quality issues already mentioned --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice sky but the quality isn't blowing me away.--Peulle (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 12:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landvanaxel01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2019 at 12:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dutch girl in traditional dress (Land van Axel)

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by DirkVE - uploaded by DirkVE - nominated by DirkVE -- DirkVE (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DirkVE (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not with that background. Sorry. --MB-one (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MB-one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely girl, however, tilt, noise and need WB. Sorry --Photographer 02:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MB and Déniel. Daniel Case (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As per others. --Gnosis (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivanovo Obl Palekh asv2018-08 img18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 01:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info Bell-ringer at work in the bell tower of Church of the Descent from the Cross in Palekh, Ivanovo Oblast, Russia ----- All by A.Savin --A.Savin 01:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 01:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason? --A.Savin 13:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop. --MB-one (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason? Is the ringer cropped by any means? Or would you like to have the whole tower on the picture? Fragen uber Fragen --A.Savin 15:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The window decorations are cut on the top and the large room on the bottom makes the composition feel unbalanced to me. --MB-one (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per MB-one. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.05.-32-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Wiesen-Storchschnabel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 18:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Salicyna (talk) 16:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:004 2018 05 14 Extremes Wetter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2019 at 21:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by Friedrich Haag, nominated by Yann (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The resolution is not very big and quite noisy, but wow is there. -- Yann (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like it, but I'd like to hear from Friedrich Haag on why it's this small. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

done, image size now is 13.60 Megapixel, file size is 5 Mpx according to Commons guideline. --F. Riedelio (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@F. Riedelio: Thanks. There are 2 dust spots on the left. Can you fix that? Yann (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. Fix is done. --F. Riedelio (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tuxyso (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support on dust spots being cleaned up. Daniel Case (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lightning is always worth seeing. But in this case I do not find the composition outstanding. The level of other lightnings in the according FP category is not reached. --Milseburg (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only light in the darkness, no buildings, no horizon, indistinct tree, I don't find the content very interesting. Compared to other FPs of similar lightnings like File:Port_and_lighthouse_overnight_storm_with_lightning_in_Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg for example, showing some environments, clouds, structures, etc., this one is just empty. But it will certainly become a QI if nominated there -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Not as great as the photo Basile links above, but I like the lines and the image enough to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's only one physical object in the entire composition, but the lightning itself is what makes the composition work. Of course it's luck that caused the lightning to travel in a particular path, but regardless for me it is worth a feature. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Hemiolaus cobaltina underside aberration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2019 at 21:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info ~~An unrecorded aberration which I had rather hoped might be a species new to science.~~ The wing span is around 25mm, so the 'height' is about 13mm. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral Shadow problem on the butterfly border (see note) --Photographer 02:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can see no 'shadow problem'. No layers have been used. Please explain what you are seeing.~~ Charles (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I couldn't find the "shadow problem" mentioned above. I like the colours, the DoF, and also the butterfly's shadow underneath it. It helps to understand the shape of the wings. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Colin (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I now see the original "unrecorded aberration" was in fact a weird Photoshopping mistake. While I'm sure Charles didn't do it to "invent" a new species, I'm not comfortable with this degree of carelessness. Abstain . -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Multiple stitching errors (see notes). Unfortunately including what you've identified as an aberration. -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're absolutely right Ryan Hodnett that something very weird has happened during editing. It's not stitching as this was just one image so it must be human error. Apologies. Will reprocess. Charles (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded Photographer Ryan Hodnett. Charles (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there still an aberration? Where? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I don't think I can change file name till voting process over. Charles (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could see the shadow problem what Im talking about here File:Bad union between layers that generates shadow.jpg. User:Podzemnik --Photographer 02:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can just about see a difference. No layers were used, but a shadow can come from colour noise reduction - that's the only possibility I can think of. See what you think of the new version Photographer Charles (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any problems with new version? Photographer Charles (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I still see the same problem in lesser proportion. My suggestion is not to repair an image to which a noise reduction has been applied wrongly, but to rethink the way you use to eliminate noise and start the process again but in the right way. --Photographer 15:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Violet-backed starling (Cinnyricinclus leucogaster verreauxi) male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2019 at 21:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Bird size is 17cm. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great posture, well done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. Beautiful bird. Please mention the approximate size of the bird in your file description, and if you feel inspired to do so, in the Wikipedia article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subreal bird colors --Photographer 02:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Der fliegende isländer (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support simply great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd maybe prefer a tiny crop on the top and the left side. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Sorry, I prefer rule of thirds. Charles (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not very sharp around head and beak. But a picture like this when the subject moves quickly back and forth isn't easy to take. --Hockei (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmm ... purple. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Salicyna (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The peak is not really sharp but overall a very nice motif Poc o² 21:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Szczodre Gody MIR 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 12:27:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Pola lilla - uploaded by Pola lilla - nominated by Wojsław Brożyna -- Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wojsław Brożyna (talk) 12:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are the bowls empty? Strange sort of feast with empty bowls. I'm tempted to oppose for lack of food interest. Also, even at preview size, the bread on the left looks like it was crudely Photoshopped into the frame, but I think this is just a consequence of the far too high global sharpening applied to the image or perhaps it was brightened? -- Colin (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice motíf, but the light is unimpressive and the image is quite grainy. I also see green chromatic aberration.--Peulle (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Also, even without those issues, the background is kind of distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bergtocht van Vens naar Bettex in Valle d'Aosta (Italië). Bomen langs bergpad in dichte mist 09.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 16:25:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena #Fog
Info Erratic shaped tree trunk of a Larix decidua in the fog on a sloping flank of a rock.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very artistic -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very special one! --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful image and I like the foggy alpine mood it depicts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure, but WB may be too warm. --XRay ^talk 07:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WB issues, but even those are attended to for me there's just too many things trying to be the subject of this image. Daniel Case (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Fog

File:ISS-49 Lake Urmia, northwestern Iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 13:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images
Info created by Nasa - uploaded by Ras67 - nominated by Hanooz -- Hanooz 13:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hanooz 13:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support high educational value, high quality rendering --Ras67 (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ras67. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't really stand out from other images taken from orbit for me, and it's not as sharp as some of the other ones we've featured, either. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IMHO the "real" sharpness is OK, the picture was not sharpened afterwards. --Ras67 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very interesting and educational satellite image, shows the extent of shrunk due to various manmade reasons. --Gnosis (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite images

File:Philippe Chaperon - Meyerbeer - Les Huguenots Act I (1896).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 19:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Philippe Chaperon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info (Since I'm aware that it will be mentioned otherwise:) With en:Template:CSS image crop and its local variants, I don't see any need to crop out parts of an image presentation. That's a hand-painted brown and gold border that was created by the artist, so why remove it? (And it'll give something to crop out if trying to print it:5x4.4 is hardly a common aspect ratio, but you can get it to a few sensible ratios if you have a border to crop.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind offering a crop version as an alternative? --Yann (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer not to. The main image is not absolutely rectangular in shape, so either a small amount of the edge of the painting would need cropped out, or I'd have to restore outwards the edge of the painting, when, as I said, there's a perfectly good way to make arbitrary crops for thumbnails. And I really don't like changing artistic intent for relatively capricious reasons. Plus, it would be inconsistent with File:Set design by Philippe Chaperon for Act4 sc2 of Aida by Verdi 1880 Paris.jpg, and other future potential images. And it's not like Chaperon does this with every image he makes; it's actually relatively rare, and may indicate something specific, like them being intended for display (the ones they're done on tend to be particularly visually impressive). Oh, and I literally spent 16 hours restoring that fucking border. If I didn't feel strongly about it before - well, I wouldn't have done it in the first place, but afterwards...

In any case, we're not just a place to make thumbnails for Wikipedia (Hell, a number of our featured images here are not and will not ever be used on any Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wikiversity, or any other related project). It would be silly to create a situation where a number of possible reuses are made more difficult because we concealed the one most useful for printing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we can literally just do this with CSS image crop and some surprisingly annoying maths:

{{CSS image crop |Image=Philippe Chaperon - Meyerbeer - Les Huguenots Act I (1896).jpg |bSize= 466|cWidth=370 |cHeight=311 |oTop= 51|oLeft= 47}}

...I am thinking of doing a template to take the equations - which are slightly complex. For example, for a crop of this image, with width X, here's the values you need bSize = X*5084/4035 | cWidth=X | cHeight=X* 3388/4035 | oTop= X*551/4035| oLeft=X*508/4035 - It feels like we can simplify the CSS crop interface by using numbers auto-generated by crop tool (which I used to figure out what numbers to use to form those equations) and plugging them in instead. They're much more readily available. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but please delete the image without the border, because the bot will treat that as an alternate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave the code instead. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the border --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing job Adam. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Großvenediger vom Kröndlhorn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2019 at 21:03:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Austria
Info Instructive view from the Kröndlhorn to the Großvenediger. All by me -- Milseburg (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrast can be bumped up a bit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info I gave a bit more contrast. --Milseburg (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the juxtaposition between the snow-capped mountains in the back and the green mountain in the front. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I feel like it's nice, but not as nice as some of the other mountain shots that I've seen.--Peulle (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle, not anything special --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I understand the opposition, but to me, this is beautiful, well labeled and worth a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not striking enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's good quality anyway, and I appreciate the notes giving information about the different peaks. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but one of the best on Commons? I don't think so. Basically, too much haze. Yann (talk) 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Livraria Cultura, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo, Brazil.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 02:48:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Brazil
Info All by -- Photographer 02:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I appreciate the effort, but the sides are a bit too tight all over; I don't think 18mm DX (27mm FX) is sufficiently wide for this kind of shot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chaotic scene.--Peulle (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The "chaos" is what is interesting here. ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Yann. --MB-one (talk) 14:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the chaos and the subject. Looks like a lovely place. I don't particularly like the composition (on the right: lots of empty carpet, but on the left the man and bookshelf are cut; the floating dragon is cut; the ceiling in the upper left corner is disturbing). The customers in the foreground could be more in focus. There are issues with the banister in several places, looks like stitching errors. -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like the columns are not really straight. Can you fix that please? Otherwise it's a great scene and I'm happy to support it. --Podzemnik (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Podzemnik

Done --Photographer 20:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now it seems to me like the customers on the 1st floor are going downwards towards the left side. --Podzemnik (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It might have worked if it was just the customers on the floor. Daniel Case (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Puelle. -- Karelj (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.17.-21-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Roetelmaus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cute, and IMO an FP because these voles are only about 10 cm long, so it's fair to judge the photo at full screen (13 inches), if not already larger-than-life. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good, but I think File:2017.06.17.-19-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Roetelmaus.jpg is better. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about to nominate both of them because they have very different compositions. But it was or rather is not possible until the current voting period of my other nomination is over. So I had to make a decision and this picture was my first choice. Thanks. --Hockei (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like that one. Fully elongated vole, seems more active. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I prefer this to the other ones (nicer pose and has straw in mouth). But the flash reflecting off the fir is not the best light. -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fir? What fir?

Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately, per Colin. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The top-down view does not work for me, neither the flash light --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hockei (talk) 11:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss-Broich-Eingang-Vorderfront-2019.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 08:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Characteristic entry area of Castle of Broich in Mülheim

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info This side of the castle together with the entry is a charactistical style element of the building. The directed morning light was imho beneficial to the motive. If you are interested in an overview view see also File:Schloss-Broich-Straßenseite-mit-Mauer-Baustelle-2019.jpg, File:Schloss-Broich-Straßenseite-2019.jpg. The castle is directly located on a busy road with tram wires in front of the building ; all by Tuxyso
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't personally see much in the way of a wow factor, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Perfectly good, but per Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination —Tuxyso (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loch Lubnaig from the path to Ben Ledi, Scotland.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 18:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#United_Kingdom
Info All by me. I quite enjoy a play of the sun and the fog together with different coloured areas of moss and heather. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely and making my homesick. I wonder if the bottom right is a bit over cooked? If you are using dehaze, for example, perhaps use a mask or gradient to not apply it to near foreground. It just looks a bit crunchy and too contrasty there. -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin! I'm using only a bit of dehaze (+5) and clarity (+5) for the whole picture. I think the bottom right looks too contrasty because it's a north facing slope without much light. I applied a mask there to make it look more natural. I hope it's better. Greetings, --Podzemnik (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the foreground looks strange and a bit unnatural. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You think so? Even now after I applied the mask? It's looking OK to me now. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find that this photo looks good at 40% of its size, which is bigger than 50% of the previous version's size that that one looks good at. At those sizes, I really don't perceive a difference. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support wonderful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous, expansive scene. Pixel-level sharpness could be better but fine given the resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid view.--Ermell (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a friend of panoramics. But this looks great for me. --Hockei (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imho the quality of the image does not reach FP bar. The right and left edges are very unsharp (neither the closer nor the farer parts are sharp) - with a multi-image shot this can be easily avoided. Especially the darker parts of the image look imho noisy and partly overprocessed - I guess too much clarity and too much shadow brightening. It looks if the focus is on the foreground (the stony path in the foreground) with the result that the background could be sharper. Motive, composition and light have FP potential, but imho not the technical execution --Tuxyso (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Tuxyso, I agree at pixel level it is soft in places and some of the processing has perhaps contributed to noise. However it is 105MP so if I reduce it 50% you get this 24MP image, which is very sharp, with no noise. So I wonder if the 24MP image had been nominated, would you have opposed? -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an everlasting discussion... I have to assess the image which is nominated here. The nominee has some technical issues which are avoidable - no unattainable requirements - especillay the sharpness at the very left and very right side and the the editing of darker parts. My very personal opinion: An FP should be a pleasure to view in a scaled version and also in full res version. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you the funds to buy a high DPI monitor so that "full res" has pixels too small for you to peep. Your vote is nothing less than a request to downsize and an insult to those generous enough to donate images full size. This image is 5.3 metres across when viewed "full res" on a standard monitor. The nomination is for a JPG in the repository, not a specific-sized rendering in your browser. Commons is not a publisher. How you choose to view the image is your choice, though made somewhat awkward by the MediaWiki interface. If you choose to view magnified so large it doesn't fit in your room, and view it from 50cm, then the flaws you see are purely down to your bad viewing choices. This kind of vote is harmful to the project. Please consider that while you may choose to downsize your images so they look pixel-perfect at 100%, others do not and should not be punished for that. -- Colin (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been absent from COM a few years and must observe that the verbal tonality in discussions changed negatively. In the past the discussions here were very constructive and also valueing. In the current disussion I made an argument with in-detail explanatory statement and Colin repeatedly shortens it to: "Looks bad in 100%, please downscale". Again, and also for [[Ikan Kekek: I do NOT postulate to downscale the image to look better. I only argue that the technical issues which could be avoided by a better shooting technique (more precise focus point, more overapping especially at the edges) and a better post-processing. Please sustain also a deviating (my very own) opinion. There is not only one truth. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a reasonable point of view and thank you for clarifying. Note that I haven't voted on this nomination, but have only made some comments above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxyso, the fact remains that if this image had been downsized and uploaded at 24 or 36MP you would not have noticed any sharpness or noise issues. You may have complained about other processing issues, but not those. So, some of your oppose rationale is only present because you are pixel peeping a gigantic 105MP image. You insist that "I have to assess the image which is nominated here" but the image that is nominated here can be viewed by you at any resolution you wish. Just because it is uploaded at 105MP does not mean you have to view it or review it at that size. That is your choice, and one I think that is unfair on the nominator. You also insist it must be "a pleasure...in full res version". So, while you can claim you haven't requested it be downsized, your vote is an implicit message that nominators will be punished with an oppose if they dare to nominate any image that is not perfect at 100%. The consequence of pixel peeping is that some nominators downsize to avoid these kinds of votes. And so we end up getting 6MP natural landscape images at FPC in 2019 when we should be getting 24MP+ images. Commons is poorer as a result.

I feel strongly that pixel peeping reviews harm Commons FP. See User:Colin/PixelPeeping where I noted "a 24MP image is not twice as bad as a 6MP image. It is superior in every way, except to a pixel peeper.". Sure, with better technique and better equipment and better processing, we might have a super sharp and noiseless 105MP image. But we do also have a this image that is the same one nominated here, just rendered in your browser at 24MP. That is the nominated image too, but you choose to find fault when you choose to view it magnified 2x on your monitor. -- Colin (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Colin. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin. --Aristeas (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#United_Kingdom

File:Castle of Montpoupon 19.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2019 at 22:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though the foreground is quite disturbing--Ermell (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors, I also like the contrast between (modern) road and old castle. Question is it an HDR image? if yes, it should be noted in the image description. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category added, Tournasol7 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed --Photographer 02:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Those tones in the sky don't like realistic to me and the compo of a nice middle-age castle and the modern asphalt road doesn't work for me either. Indeed I'd have avoided the road and looked for a different angle. Otherwise a nice one Poc o² 10:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France

File:Untitled by Mansour Qandriz (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 06:31:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media#Others
Info created by Mansour Qandriz - uploaded and nominated by Hanooz Hanooz 06:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 06:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info Read more: QANDRIZ, MANSUR and SAQQĀ-ḴĀNA SCHOOL OF ART. Hanooz 06:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit too dark for my taste. Also I don't really know what I'm looking at.--Peulle (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peulle: You can read this text (with google translate) written by Karim Emami for an exhibition in Galleria Borghese. Hanooz 11:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough, I'm afraid. For a file on Commons, I expect there to be a proper file desription.--Peulle (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting and nice colors. I would support with an English description. --Yann (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Gnosis (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that an English-language description was added. Interesting painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue rock thrush (male) at Gamla Nature Reserve.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2019 at 19:48:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info created & uploaded by Artemy Voikhansky - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why this small size for a 30mpx camera? --Photographer 01:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit small, but fine details. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it's small and a better crop would make it smaller still. Not too much definition in the feathers. Charles (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nice face and eye, but oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit small for sure. But the details are good enough for me and it looks very nice. --Hockei (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Aristeas (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes

File:Hamburg Notgeld 1 Mark 1921.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 21:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info Issued by the City of Hamburg in 1921, designed by Hermann de Bruycker, reproduced and uploaded by Palauenc05
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very curious design for money, even for emergency money. MartinD (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Plexippus petersi (jumping spider) on a human finger at golden hour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 00:41:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family_:_Salticidae_(Jumping_Spiders)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Such a small spider! It looks like it shed some of its hairs on you (or whoever's finger it was). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow! Yann (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In general I don't like animals on or with humans (even I made such pictures too ;-) ). But the spider is really good. --Hockei (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support In general I don't like animals on or with humans (even I made such pictures too ;-) ). But the spider is really good. --Charles (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same too -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same two -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trougnouf (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It didn't bite, did it? :o ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately no, or if it did I didn't feel anything :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family_:_Salticidae_(Jumping_Spiders)

File:В потчётном карауле.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 21:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by ВладимирФото - uploaded by ВладимирФото - nominated by AKA MBG -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is that a huge lens flare in the tree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good focus to the girls, but what happened with the clouds? IMO also relative small photo to be a FP. I would support this photo for Q1, but it's techincally not good enough for a FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting picture, but the light is too harsh. As a result, the luminous parts seem overexposed. Lens flare in the trees. Beside, the passerby in front of the building spoils a bit the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per others, quality issues -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frightening and funny at the same time, these three gunwomen. Apart from technical issues, the guy in the background spoils it completely. It's a shame, it could have been a very special motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the composition, but unfortunately the technical issues spoil it. —Bruce1ee^talk 09:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Complicated composition and harsh light. Daniel Case (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duna en Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 002.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 12:53:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Dune just after sunrise in Sossusvlei, Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia. All by me, Poc o² 12:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 12:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple and effective. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it works. Charles (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good light and composition. One of the better dune pics I've seen.--Peulle (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 09:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although this dune might have been shot a million times, I like this image, and the people on the dune. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on support I love the yin-yang look, and the people hiking near the edge of the dark side. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 10:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epic. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- More support is hardly required, but never mind. :) MartinD (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support what big dune, wow --67.68.177.192 23:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:You need only one soap, Ivory soap - Strobridge & Co. Lith. - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 14:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by The Strobridge Lith. Co., for The Procter & Gamble Co. - restoration by Adam Cuerden - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is a second nomination, six years later. I honestly have no idea why the previous nomination failed; it was 100% supported, but failed to reach quorum. It's featured on English Wikipedia, and stable in numerous Wikipedia articles in multiple languages. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Really obvious FP and VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. :) --Peulle (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KlauRau (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support That big "It Floats" always reminds me of the ghost story I heard as a kid which turns out to be a joke for which that's the punchline. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one? --Cart (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Carved portal at Haw Phra Kaew temple in Vientiane Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 04:25:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Doors
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It'd be good to mention a scale in the image description. I'm struggling to guess how big the portal actually is. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Doors

File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 11:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Alfred Stieglitz (scan by Google Art Project), uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has been hailed as one of the greatest photographs of all time because it captures in a single image both a formative document of its time and one of the first works of artistic modernism. cf. Wikipedia. -- Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would eventually propose File:The Steerage MET DP232922, grayscale.jpg as an alternative: smaller, but less noise. Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're the nominator, so which one do you prefer? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I prefer the grayscale version, but I know some people will object. Ultimately, I don't care which one is featured. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding the sepia version below better. But which was original? Did he originally print it in sepia tones or grayscale? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take it, no-one has an answer for this question? Then how are we supposed to vote, and what criteria are you all using to decide which one to vote for? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: This was recorded as a black and white negative. That's why I prefer a grayscale version. Beside, the color versions vary with time, so we can't really know which tone was the original print in 1907. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Though I do think the sepia version is better, maybe it would be more faithful to the original to do a black & white version of that file... Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this is the best version, and File:The Steerage MET DP232922, grayscale.jpg is easily the worst (bad crop, contrast boosted causing crushed blacks). I think File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project, from Getty.jpg is best -- there is significantly more detail in the dark jackets and the crop is straighter. -- Colin (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that it's better for the reasons you state. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Historical value -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support While this one seems slightly tilted compared to the grayscale one, that's fixable, and this one captures more detail. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case the left, bottom and right edges are all straight in this one; only the top is curved. The other image has more tilts, though the top is more symmetrically curved. I suspect they come from different prints. I would be opposed to "fixing" this -- it's a faithful scan by professionals. In the end, the print is what it is. -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Трифонов Андрей (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Gnosis (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KlauRau (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

The chosen alternative is: File:Alfred Stieglitz - The Steerage - Google Art Project, from Getty.jpg

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3153-9.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 08:38:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very nice composition and light. I will support when you fix the dust spots. I see one somewhat to the right of and below the upper left corner. There are three more above the trees toward the right, but those could be unsharp birds, and if so and you therefore want to keep them, that's OK with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sorry. The dust spot and the blurry birds are removed now. --XRay ^talk 08:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Yes, Sir, but why don't I see this on the regular FPC page? I saw this only because I looked at the "File usage on Commons" list when seeing this file as a QIC nominee. If others are having the same problem as me in seeing this nomination, that would surely damage its chances. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why. I just added the nomination to the list (again). May be someone removed the nomination accidentally. --XRay ^talk 10:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see [1]. --XRay ^talk 10:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hockei (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is a branch in the lake that looks as if it had been opened by an earthquake --67.68.177.192 23:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany

File:Kapok on a branch of Ceiba pentandra (white silk-cotton tree).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 03:15:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Bombacaceae
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit dark. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I love this subject but totally agree the light is harsh. Thanks for pointing that out. Thus I stroke my support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spitzkoppe, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 14-22 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2019 at 21:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of Spitzkoppe, a group of bald granite peaks located between Usakos and Swakopmund in the Namib desert of Namibia. All by me, Poc o² 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like Mercury after being terraformed. Makes me thirsty just scrolling through it—the very definition of "arid". Daniel Case (talk) 22:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The central frame suffers from camera shake, I guess. Or whatever, the image is unsharp in the center. Very sorry, as it is really impressive. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't find it unsharp. The landscape is very impressive and I really enjoyed exploring the panorama, including the village close to the mountain in the center. However, I think the panorama is tilted. The right side is lower than the left side and the telecommunication tower on the hill on the right side is leaning right. So I think it needs ACW rotation. Could you have a look at that? Maybe it's just a coincidence. --Podzemnik (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Podzemnik: I've applied a slight tilt and some perspective correction, also some extra sharpening, FYI Uoaei1 Poc o² 12:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Gnosis (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.18.-08-Viernheim--Roter Fingerhut.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 11:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Plantaginaceae
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not as good as File:Bloemen en knoppen van Vingerhoedskruid (Digitalis purpurea). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpg which shows various stages and the internals of the flower. This is a very common flower so I would expect something special about the specimen or the artistic composition for FP. (Btw, Hockei, "Plants" is a huge FP category, so please help reviewers and closers by locating the section of that page -- I've added Plantaginaceae to the link above). -- Colin (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't assess the other picture mentioned above and I won't let me play off against others. The other picture has a different composition. In my picture the blossoms hanging down and more other details make it interesting such as the colours and the grass in the background. The both pictures are not comparable. --Hockei (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A Qi for sure, but Colin is right about why it isn't an FP compared to the other picture of the same species. Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown hairstreak (Thecla betulae) Bulgaria.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 09:23:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info Another candidate from the Rila Mountains in Bulgaria. by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The flower seems overexposed, isn't? But well... --Yann (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 10:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poc o² 06:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Convolvulus hawk-moth (Agrius convolvuli) 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 09:19:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Info This type of Sphingidae (about 45mm long) has a huge proboscis. The wings beat at around 45 beats/second, so it is not possible to freeze wing motion in the wild. From Bulgaria. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support considering that this was captured in flight: wow! --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I already liked the photo and considered the motion blur appropriate, but I'm more impressed, considering that it beats its wings 45x a second. Technical question, though: Why wouldn't you use a shorter exposure than 1/1,600 of a second? Granted that I was only using an Android and mostly photographing butterflies that had alighted for a fraction of a second or more, but I was having much better luck last summer in getting sharp pictures of butterflies with rapidly beating wings when I shortened my exposure to 1/4,090 of a second. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already at maximum aperture (F5.6) and would have gone to 1/2000 and ISO 800 if I had time. I find that although sharpness would be better at 1/4000, overall quality (for print or FP pixel-peeping) really deteriorates above ISO 800. With this sort of photography I use a preset of 1/1600 or 1/2000 sec. If I leave it up to the camera's brain (SCN Sports), it can get confused: if it sees the insect's body as pretty still it reduces shutter speed. If it sees the wings it might select 1/8000 and a very high ISO. On my Canon 80D I have two presets (C1 and C2). I program one at 1/1600 (TV = shutter priority: S on Nikon I think) and one at 1/2000. I then get better depth of field if the light happens to be really good. Not this time. Charles (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support IMHO there's no discussion necessary ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I thought it was a twig, but no, it really is the trunk ! Impressive -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 10:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow great shot! --Podzemnik (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 13:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --67.68.177.192 23:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Newport Jersey City June 2015 panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 06:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- I'm afraid I do not see what makes this an outstanding picture. Isn't just a (technically competent) picture of a number of high-rise buildings? MartinD (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree. I considered opposing, as I don't see a great composition, but the composition is not bad, helped by the wooden spikes, and as you say, the photo is technically very good, so I don't see the point in standing in the way of consensus on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see this as the latest of King's series of skylines of the Northeastern United States. I think this view is even better now, and I've been thinking myself of taking the train down to Hoboken and shooting that view. From the promenades between the station and the development a really amazing view is possible that takes in both Newport, which looks really cool with newer buildings like the Ellipse going up, and the Lower Manhattan skyline with the new 1 WTC. With a little of the trees along the promenade on the lower right, and those old bollards. It's one of a slowly increasing number of places in and around New York which almost make you think you're in China.
Maybe this spring ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

File:Viru Bog at winter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2019 at 16:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Estonia
Info created & uploaded by Abrget47j - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful, and a very good choice to make it a black&white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not ... look closely and you can see the color on the tree trunks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd prefer if it were really black & white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Seven Pandas (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel--Ermell (talk) 08:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness is not impressive, but still acceptable. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 10:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Estonia

File:Bridge over the River Soar, Abbey Park (geograph 4718856).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 17:26:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info Abbey Park Bridge spanning the River Soar in Abbey Park, Leicester. Created by David P Howard from Geograph - uploaded and nominated by -- Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support A Geograph image that I think is worthy of a nomination. -- Jokulhlaup (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but small. I expect bigger than that, except for exceptional circumstances. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Small and the building is unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fluweelpootje, (Flammulina velutipes), (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 16:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category:Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Flammulina velutipes.
Info Enokitake. (Flammulina velutipes). Wet rained little mushrooms (Enokitake) on the dead wood of an elder (Sambucus nigra).
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice, but IMO, a little too grainy to be great. Could you do something about that, if others agree? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Support - Nice shapes, colors and light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 10:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 10:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks sort of Roger-Dean-ish. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 06:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it.Thanhdien8421 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Physalacriaceae

File:Maria Anzbach Buchbergwarte Panorama W 20190217.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2019 at 09:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Lower Austria
Info Panoramic view to the west from the observation tower at the Buchberg mountain (469 metres (1,539 ft)), municipality of Maria Anzbach, Lower Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Very good labeling, so good for VI, but I find the photo quite hazy and I'm not captivated by the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced by a barren landscape in the middle of winter. For better contrast and colors, either there should be snow, or it should be taken in a different season. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Not the best light that day.--Peulle (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:A nymphaea capensis in Vietnam.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 17:56:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Nymphaea
Info A purple waterlily (nymphaea capensis) after a rain in Vietnam, take by me. -- Thanhdien8421 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Displeasing noise at higher resolutions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The technical quality is far below FP standards. There are heavy compression artefacts and the left crop cuts off one of the petals.--Peulle (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your idea. This is the first time I take part in this competion, so I've not had many experience yet. I will try to improve it later and I hope you will help me.Thanhdien8421 (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't already, you might consider going to COM:Photography critiques for advice, or to COM:QIC, which has relatively tough standards but not as tough as FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!Thanhdien8421 (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per others --67.68.177.192 23:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked[reply]
Comment It’s a pity that the image quality is low; else, this would be a wonderful image IMHO. --Aristeas (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marina di Pescara, December 2014.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 23:55:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Italy
Info Gran Sasso mountain as seen from the Port of Pescara, in Pescara, Italy. Created by Giorgio Gigante - uploaded and nominated by Earthh. -- Earthh (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Earthh (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overexposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something I can do to fix it?--Earthh (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact the photographer to request another version modified from the RAW file. Though I'm not sure this will succeed anyway. Oppose for now -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Basile. No, once a JPG is over-exposed, there often isn't much one can do. The composition is rather messy. The mountains are impressive but the foreground is random. -- Colin (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The composition is at least active, and I wouldn't call it completely random - it's framed by 2 masts on either side - but the overexposure is problematic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I also find the composition crowded.--Peulle (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Overexposed, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julia Shaw 2018-03-10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 05:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Boris Breuer, uploaded by Guestwires, nominated by Yann (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice professional quality portrait, high resolution. -- Yann (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It feels slightly unusual that there's so much room to her right, but somehow, it works. Very sharp, beautiful subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Beautiful subject" Haha ;) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's part of the viewer's experience. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very sharp and focused. ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bright and contrasty lighting helps accentuate the subject. Could use perhaps a little bit more headroom, but otherwise great portrait. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The strange background makes this special. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, useful -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support The DOF could be a very bit deeper (see the fingers on the left). But aside of that, it is one of the best portrait I've seen. Quality and composition. --Hockei (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the idea of her being off-center. Daniel Case (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love shoten! :) JukoFF (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
shoten ? -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

joke :) JukoFF (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:African hawk eagle (Aquila spilogaster).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 13:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Good and definitely useful, so duly a QI and VI, but not great, IMO, and not as good as your usual FPC nominee. I'd like to see sharper feathers on the side and especially the head. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Maybe not... Charles (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nido de tejedores republicanos (Philetairus socius), Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 171.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2019 at 22:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes
Info Sociable weaver nest (Philetairus socius) viewed from the bottom, Sossusvlei, Namibia. All by me, Poc o² 22:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very special composition, but the branches left (and right) behind the main part of the photo are spoiling the composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Not the reaction I had hoped Poc o² 08:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017.06.17.-19-Reinheimer Teich-Reinheim--Roetelmaus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 11:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info As announced, the other version. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the other one, the flash on the fur is not best, and the "looking down" is not immersive like the best animal photography. -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cute, and a lot bigger than the ~10 cm in length that this vole would have been. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harshly lit, doesn't wow me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Lots of EV, though … --El Grafo (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, the evil bad devil, called flash. No doubt, there is no chance in this scene anymore. I withdraw my nomination --Hockei (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beskid Mały Mountains (PL).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 11:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose On any other photo site, this image would have people (or animals) in it. A movie director would be shouting "Action!". The scene is a great one, but it needs something in it. -- Colin (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
conditional support It's nice, real nice, but the categories need improving.--Peulle (talk) 11:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agreed on categories. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- what is wrong with the categories? English version of the park? --Pudelek (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are fine, but I think you need to add one for crepuscular rays. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice light. It reminds me this, and that nomination. Wild path off the beaten track, special atmosphere -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, I immediately thought of Ermell's picture that you linked first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The light and shadow play of the sun's rays should be more contrastful IMO. --Hockei (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose Having done something similar once, I really wanted to be able to support this. But ... per Colin, there should be something to draw us to the center of the frame, or per Hockei the crepuscular rays should have more contrast. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Colin here Poc o² 20:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the mood --Llez (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin - nuit (Colmar).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2019 at 13:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
Info Prefecture of Haut-Rhin at night in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 ^[discuter] 13:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not ready to vote, so I'll just mention what I'm seeing. It's a nice photo, though not huge compared to the building photos we've mostly been considering at FPC lately. Sharpness of the blue-lit areas is not overwhelming. Also, the symmetry is nice, but the building is cropped on both sides. Overall, it's definitely a QI, but I'm unsure it's an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I guess I don't think it's quite an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough subject isolation between the dark parts of the building and the night sky. Try again during blue hour. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Angle makes it look tilted; also not sharp up front. And per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Gerald abbey church of Aurillac 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2019 at 15:15:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A couple of days have gone by without votes, so I think maybe more people feel like I do - I'll be the first to say it: The standard for church ceilings is very high, so this doesn't quite float my boat. It has some cool patterns, but that's about it; it's not quite up there with the other photos in the category.--Peulle (talk) 10:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Moderate support It's not perfect, yes, but I like it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. There are lots more "wow" ceilings on Commons, so can't be "among the finest". -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Feature picture candidates of architecture should come with an informative description. This photo has been taken in an abbey church with a long and complex building history. When was this vault constructed, were there any reconstruction/refurbishment works executed in the 19th century or later? Is this the crossing vault? How is this picture oriented? @Colin: Many of the Gothic vaults of medieval monasteries were not designed with “wow” in mind, this would have been distracting. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- AFBorchert I agree the architects did not have FPC in mind. Scottish Presbyterian churches are rather plain too when compared with those in other countries. In the end we are here to judge an image for wow and if the subject lacks wow then it is hard overcome that. National Geographic photographer Jim Richardson once said "If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff". Of course, pictures such as this are still valuable to Commons. -- Colin (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My understanding is that the vaults in Gothic cathedrals were indeed intended to awe, as they represented the vault of the Heavens, and the stained glass windows, aside from telling sacred stories, were meant to filter colored light into the cathedrals like Heavenly jewels. In addition, with their tall ceilings and towers, Gothic cathedrals were commonly visible for miles as pilgrims walked to church. So I would definitely disagree that they were not designed with "wow" in mind. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: This is not a cathedral but an abbey church where visitors in medieval time came not even close to the crossing as they had to stay behind the rood screen. Instead, this belongs to a very intimate place where monks went down the stairs from the dormitory at the middle of the night, walked through the south transept and the crossing, turning to the choir to hold a candlelit vigil in the stalls.

@Colin: As you well know, “wow” is nowhere mentioned in the nominating guidelines of COM:FPC. Instead the guidlines tell that candidates “should be in some way special”. Gothic architecture including that of austere abbey churches is “interesting stuff” even if it is not overwhelming with eye candy. One might wonder if a particular photograph is good at catching the atmosphere and the architecture of an object like this. For example, I would prefer a shot like this one from the ambulatory of the same church if it would be of the same quality. Gothic architecture comes always with lights and shadows which continually change the shapes during the course of a day. In this FP candidate, however, we see just the vault which is illuminated quite uniformely with polychromatic light (probably coming from stained glass). This is not the fault of the photographer and the photo is unquestionable valuable but in my opinion this kind of light spoils the solemnity of the vault. So, in this case I would not support FP status but surely not for having no “wow”. --AFBorchert (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFBorchert, the Commons:Image guidelines which the nomination page links to as "Please read the complete guidelines before nominating", does mention "wow", twice. Indeed, "wow factor" is the only quality-related differentiating factor it mentions vs QI, though the nomination page also says FP is to determine images to be "highlighted as some of the finest on Commons", which indicates an exclusive top spot that QI doesn't aim for either. Photographically, this image is unoriginal and a very common approach to capturing such a ceiling. I've done that myself (File:Paisley Abbey Ceiling.jpg) but that ceiling is far more interesting to look at. One problem with this view is that can be very hard to judge depth, leaving the result looking like a pattern but less clear form. The other photo you link has much better light, and it is easy to see the form of the ceiling. A photographer could take a less wow ceiling but capture it with great light and/or a great viewpoint and composition, and produce an FP. Perhaps my original "this can't be" is too strong: it is just much harder to achieve. If one starts with a fantastic ceiling, then one almost only has to make sure the camera is dead centre, pointing straight up and sufficient DoF. Or to put it another way, someone has to create "wow": either the stonemasons or the photographer. -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Colin, I missed the “wow” in Commons:Image guidelines. But I still think that this term is unfortunate as the term strengthens the short-term effect of the eye-candyness factor too far to my taste. Otherwise, I agree that depth is a problem for this candidate. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amphitheatre Bay after a storm, Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 06:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Cyprus (Cyprus doesn't have its section yet)
Info All by me. It's Amphitheatre Bay, Akamas Peninsula, Cyprus, about a minute after a storm. You can still see rain in the clouds. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting atmosphere. Could perhaps benefit from a slight brightening. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True true. Thanks for the review, I brightened it up a bit. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Lovely. On brightening, though: The brighter version may look better in isolation, but you're giving something up, which is the atmosphere of an impending thunderstorm. You might consider splitting the difference somewhere between the two versions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikan, I tried to find a sweet middle spot. --Podzemnik (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. I also misread "a minute a storm". I thought you meant a minute before a storm, but I see from the file description that it's a minute after a storm, clearly with the sun coming out behind it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hups, I forgot to put the word "after" into the description above. Fixed, thanks for the hint. --Podzemnik (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Charles (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Measured support I wish more of it was a little sharper, but it's still a great scene overall. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Poc o² 06:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2019 -- 3216-22.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 07:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 07:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 07:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice lines and beautiful sunlight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A courageous shot, but well done. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tozina (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Podzemnik (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop below at the pond is too tight and bothers me. It would work better for me with crop above in between 16:9 and 16:10, so that the treetops on the left are not cut. --Hockei (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Germany

File:Sella da Ciandepinëi.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 07:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple composition, great resolution. I like how the shadow emphasizes the mountain massif above. Maybe cropping a bit of the right part would be nice so the bottom of the valley-like shadow is in the middle of the picture. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A sort of magic mountain. I love the textures and shapes of the rock, the road with hairpin curves and everything else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although as Podzemnik says, centering the view on the massif would feel better. --GeXeS (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice but it is tilted in ccw direction, see houses on the left and trees in the middle and on the left, could you fix that? File size IMHO again too big specially considering that the sharpness is just ok (but perfectly understandable for this far shot) Poc o² 06:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful and of very high quality. There are stitching errors at the bottom of the picture (the lines of the cableway are interrupted at two points) but that appears minor given the scale of the scenery. -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highlights on the snow high up could be dimmed, but they're such a small part of the overall image. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Italy

File:Stift Wilhering Kirche Orgel 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2019 at 07:09:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info Pipe organ of Wilhering Abbey Church, Upper Austria. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I just love this church! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality of a beautiful subject. Even though when I compare it with the front view, the front image is brighter. This nominated image could benefit from some brightening, too. --Podzemnik (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Slightly brightened --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive architecture, impressive photo. Not so impressive restoration of the ceiling fresco ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Charles (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --67.68.177.192 23:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC) this comment was done by User:The Photographer without do login because my user is temporally locked[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great motif and detail, would it be possible to specify in the panorama template how many frames have been used here instead os saying "multiple"? --Poc o² 06:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Aristeas (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish it were a teeny bit more centered, and that something could be done about all that blue around the window above the altar, but otherwise this is great. Daniel Case (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria

File:Wandelen over de Planken Wambuis vanuit Mossel 058.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2019 at 16:51:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Fog
Info Walking the Planken Wambuis from Mossel. Morning mist hangs over the Planken Wambuis.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmosphere. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Another path with nobody in it. I'm not really convinced by the composition. The weather isn't quite misty enough to be an interesting feature. -- Colin (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Oppose per Colin. Yes, beautiful atmosphere, but the composition falls a bit flat to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Very nice atmosphere. And landscape with nobody on this abandoned place is very fine me. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, per Colin. -- B2Belgium (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Might work if the path divided at this point. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot but IMHO still lacks wow effect Poc o² 20:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin and Poco. --Harlock81 (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:A nymphaea capensis in Viet Nam.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 6:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Nymphaea
Info A purple waterlily (nymphaea capensis) after a rain, take in Vietnam by me. -- Thanhdien8421 (talk) 6:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Beautiful, but quality isn't good... Tournasol7 (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong JPEG artefacts. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. You should check out the Guidelines and possibly also look at the FP gallery to see what kind of photos are considered good enough. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will try better in the next time.Thanhdien8421 (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. It would make a great cover image for a maxipad box, though. Daniel Case (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Haha. Can't tell if that's a compliment or not ;) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 04:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others; nice composition though ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 04:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castle of Montal 12.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 07:15:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - I quite like this. There's one small detail I don't understand, though: Is there some kind of mist only in the shadow at the top of the tree to the left of the chateau? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in its current form: there's quite a bit of barrel distortion going on. It's pretty normal for the ridge of an old roof to sag, but this one is doing the opposite. Other pictures in Category:Château de Montal suggest that both roofs' ridges are indeed pretty much straight. Also, I don't really dig the composition. With the trees blocking the lower part of the walls, I can't find much to hold on to. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I do see the curviness of the roof, as compared to photos like File:Le château de Montal.jpg and File:Domaine de Montal.jpg. I still actually do like the composition, but I'm now unsure the picture should be featured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overprocessed and the cylindrical projection is not natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 09:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 09:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk)`
Oppose I like this but I vote against because of technical issues: noisy, oversharpened, hot pixels, perspective. f/16 is not a good option on Micro Four Thirds. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Basotxerri, I'm guessing they used f/16 to maximise the exposure time, probably in combination with an ND filter. -- Colin (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Colin, I know that f/16 probably was chosen for maximising the exposure time but you can do that by using a second ND filter two. The problem is that on Micro Four Thirds, you'll suffer quality loss up from smaller apertures than f/8. f/16 on MFT is the equivalent of f/32 on Full Frame. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a 16:9 crop would be better: there's too much grey sea. -- Colin (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, your suggestion is a better crop. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on technical reasons (regardless of the crop, but I do agree it will be an improvement). Note that B&W does tend to hide flaws such as grain and unsharpness compared to the color image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, a bit noisy :\ ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 05:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info 16:9 crop as suggested. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - I think what Gerifalte is seeing as noise, I'm seeing as grain. Anyway, I like the photo, but it's a close case on whether it should be featured or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support impressive composition, not too happy about the noise --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
strong support I don't care about the noise. I could print this at A3 size and given an appropriate viewing distance it would not be apparent. What I do find a bit irritating is the sharpening halo along the bottom of the bridge. And maybe I'd try taking the edge off the highlights in the sky a bit more; I find those almost-white patches a bit distracting. Otherwise: just plain awesome. --El Grafo (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a good example of long-exposure to blur the sky and sea, providing contrast between soft and hard, formless and form. It is a picture to be enjoyed as a whole, not under a magnifying glass. The white cables against dark sky are a good catch. Even with this 16:9 crop it is still 15MP so pixel level sharpness or noise is not important for this kind of image, and would be irrelevant if printed. -- Colin (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- An excellent picture! MartinD (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noisy but very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Great view but too much noise, it needs to be adressed --Poc o² 06:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great (the often mentioned noise doesn’t bother me, per El Grafo and Colin). --Aristeas (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent. JukoFF (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding long exposure shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly stronger support than weak support Okay now we're talking... That crop really made a shocking difference; the grain/noise is still there but now the composition is excellent :) ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 04:31, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

The chosen alternative is: File:Vasco da Gama Bridge B&W (crop2).jpg

File:Arcade du Cinquantenaire (DSCF7405).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 15:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Belgium
Info by User:Trougnouf
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the subject is naturally asymmetric on the far extremes - that's OK, but I'd prefer if the asymmetric bits were cropped off. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the asymmetry of the building and prefer the crop as is, framing the colonnade. -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ghost flag is absolutely central, and quite disturbing -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oer Basile. There's also a blurred person as you move to the left. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flamenco común (Phoenicopterus roseus), Walvis Bay, Namibia, 2018-08-05, DD 30.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 20:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Phoenicopteriformes_(Flamingos)
Info Exemplar of Greater flamingo (Phoenicopterus roseus), Walvis Bay, Namibia. All by me, Poc o² 20:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the blurring of the foot, the movement through the water makes it FP. Charles (talk)
Support Per Charles --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, sharp at lower but still high resolution (5000 px large) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The motion blur is a feature, not a bug. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good capture —Bruce1ee^talk 05:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Order_:_Phoenicopteriformes_(Flamingos)

File:Lupinus pilosus in Tel-Sukho-2019-02-16-IZE-021-Wikipedia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2019 at 15:21:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info created by MathKnight and Zachi Evenor - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 15:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MathKnight ✡ (Talk) 15:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background, I wish the plant was better separated from the back. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't really wow me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Baso, though the plant is beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unexceptional. Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forte de Copacabana 10-crop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2019 at 03:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Info created by Halleypo - uploaded and nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice scene with a lot going on in it, but at 7.3 MP I'd like to see better sharpness. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per King. I agree with everything he says, but the photo is so beautiful. No possibility of a larger resolution, I take it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not finding much more here than a holiday snap, I'm afraid. Technical issues per KoH. -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, too much haze and relatively small resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others; blown surf is difficult not to see. Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moscow VDNKh Space Pavilion asv2018-08 img5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2019 at 21:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Dome interior of the 32th Pavilion of VDNKh Park Moscow ("Space Exploration" Pavilion, built in 1954) All by A.Savin --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 21:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm disappointed you weren't able to get the entire dome in the picture. I feel like even if it's partly blocked by other objects, it might be more satisfying for the entire area of the dome to be in the picture, not cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support Only because I think it was probably not possible to get the whole dome in the frame (without merging separate images into a vertorama, anyway, which may have created a different set of problems. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Certainly a QI but I don't find the composition compelling. The dome is cut on two sides, and the overlaying part at the bottom distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop is a shortcoming, maybe an inevitable one, but the light is great. --Aristeas (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like this since it is a space pavilion and not yet another church. I think it would look better of you disregarded the "normal" standards of having domes like this centered and displayed in full and instead worked with lines and where they intersect corners and touch borders. I have suggested a crop that would make this a more abstract photo with cleaner lines. --Cart (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Climbing World Championships 2018 Lead Semi Lettner (BT0A1201).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 00:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Simon04 - uploaded by Simon04 - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition : distracting foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the composition doesn't work for me.--Peulle (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting blurry foreground. --Yann (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I honestly thought that this was a concert pic, from the pose and the colorful background. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arnsberg-Panorama Herbst 2018.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2019 at 09:23:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Germany
Info Panoramic view from Ehmsendenkmal over Arnsberg. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many pixels, but I don't find these houses particularly exciting -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Basile, the way you feel about this is sort of the way I've been feeling about the picture of a highrise development in Jersey City that's nominated further down the page. In this case, the composition works for me, maybe partly because of all the different orientations of the houses and the interspersed greenery. Either way, I do enjoy this, and it's also impressive, as usual from Milseburg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. Many pixels do not a picture make. The view is random and the sides are heavily shaded. -- Colin (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- This is a very useful picture for Wikipedia articles on Arnberg, but I'm afraid it does not have a sufficient wow-factor to qualify as a featured picture. With apologies, MartinD (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, although it would probably qualify for both QI and VI. --El Grafo (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. I don't find the shady corners too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile, and some buildings are not straight (bottom, right but also some in the middle-left). I can add notes if you like. Poc o² 06:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Heubach -- 2019 -- 3260.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2019 at 05:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Info The nomination was proposed Ikan Kekek. Thank you to Ikan! -- XRay ^talk 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, I find this poetic - a reed's eye view of the sun, so to speak. Delicate, and with what strikes me as a Japanese-influenced sensibility. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support poetic indeed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Would it be possible to reduce the blue CAs? --Basotxerri (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for your hint. I just fixed it. --XRay ^talk 14:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Seven Pandas (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be tempted to trim just a little off the top where the brighter lights are. Then you get a nicer impression of continued brown tone. -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try it. --XRay ^talk 13:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think you're right. It's better now. Thank you. --XRay ^talk 14:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support crop is a bit tight on the top but not too much of a big deal ― Gerifalte _Del Sabana 04:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Harlock81 (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Germany

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2019

File:2017.05.13.-02-Bruehl Rohrhof--Margerite.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:5000 rupiah bill, 2001 series (2009 date), processed, obverse and reverse.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Mother Nature, Summer (Unsplash).jpg, featured[edit]

File:Gerania bosci bosci (longhorn beetle) on a leaf.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Mirror reflection of a water buffalo bathing in a pond in Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

File:United States Botanic Garden Washington April 2017 003.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Golden Gate Park San Francisco December 2016 006.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Poggersdorf Linsenberg Landschaft mit Birnbäumen 11012019 5938.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Jabirú africano​ (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis), delta del Okavango, Botsuana, 2018-07-31, DD 11.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Nürnberg Schöner Brunnen und Frauenkirche 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Madagascar fody (Foudia madagascariensis) male 2.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Berkenzwam (Piptoporus betulinus) (d.j.b.) 08.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Church of the Holy Sepulchre of Villeneuve 14.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Sunrise and clouds over the Étang de Thau from Mèze 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Cucurbita 2018 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Eugène Du Faget - Costume designs for Guillaume Tell - 1-3. Laure Cinti-Damoreau as Mathilde, Adolphe Nourrit as Arnold Melchtal, and Nicolas Levasseur as Walter Furst.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Rain over Beinn Eich, Luss Hills, Scotland.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Winter in Trossachs, Scotland.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Ausblick vom Steilufer Schönhagen.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Catedral de San Pablo de la Cruz, Ruse, Bulgaria, 2016-05-27, DD 11-13 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Dülmen, Lüdinghauser Tor -- 2019 -- 2790.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Pomegranate Juice (2019).jpg, not featured[edit]

File:St. Mary's Syro-Malabar Cathedral Basilica, Ernakulam by Augustus Binu.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Glaze on 3000, av Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Québec.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Gyps fulvus in flight.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Austrian Future Cup 2018-11-23 Training Afternoon Horizontal bar (Martin Rulsch) 0149.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Curtiss P40N Kittyhawk OTT2013 D7N8883 BEA 001.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Etangs de Bassies 12.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Karlsruhe Palace - Christmas illumination.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Rostock asv2018-05 img63 Warnemuende port.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Rudbeckia occidentalis on Aspen Mountain (91134).jpg, featured[edit]

File:2017.06.11.-23-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Stabwanze-Weibchen bei Eiablage.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Madagascar black-eye (Leptomyrina phidias).jpg, featured[edit]

File:Temple Wat Xieng Thong - Luang Prabang - Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Varano del Nilo (Varanus niloticus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 57.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Travesía del delta del Okavango en makoro, Botsuana, 2018-07-31, DD 08.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Steviola Saslonch Tai droc te Val Gherdëina.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Eurasian Tree Sparrow Head.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Gerania bosci bosci (longhorn beetle) on a coconut (focus stacking).jpg, featured[edit]

File:Sheikhlotfolah.jpg, featured[edit]

File:2017.06.11.-11-Albersbacher Riedwiesen-Rimbach--Grosses Ochsenauge-Maennchen.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Trier Meisner (1625).jpg, featured[edit]

File:August-1922-m-mcdonald-a-member-of-lord-woolavingtons-house-party-a-picture-id3432611.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Golden Gate Park San Francisco December 2016 004.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Statue of Buddha inside Pullahari Monastery(Gumba)-IMG 9188.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Tom Enders, ILA 2018, Schönefeld (1X7A5699-2).jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Clevelandart 1915.342.2.jpg, featured[edit]

File:A swamp below the top of Doune Hill, Luss Hills, Scotland.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Book of Hours (Use of Metz) Fol. 27r, Decorated Initials.tif, featured[edit]

File:Mirounga angustirostris calling 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Alternative[edit]

File:Paul Maurou - Poster for Edmond Audran's Gillette de Narbonne.jpg, featured[edit]

File:View north from Ben Lawers, Scotland.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Street musician in Brussels Central Station (DSCF7054).jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Bangladeshi four years old girl smiling (01).jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Jean-Baptiste Singry - Joséphine Mainvielle-Fodor.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Silbersee III -- 2019 -- 2993.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Münster, Torminbrücke -- 2019 -- 2857.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Leopardo (Panthera pardus) devorando un antílope, parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-26, DD 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Beer bottles 2018 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Bergtocht van Alp Farur (1940 meter) via Stelli (2383 meter) naar Gürgaletsch (2560 meter) 010.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Pörtschach Halbinsel Landspitz Schiffslandesteg 08122018 5596.jpg, featured[edit]

File:2018-12-20-Turkish pastry with cream filling-1253.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Aussicht vom Spitznack.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Hippopotamus in Chobe National Park 07.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Ladakh Range 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Notre-Dame-du-Puy church of Figeac 26.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Pusula solandri 01.JPG, featured[edit]

File:Mosaic Boxer crab (Lybia tessellata) (14387916576).jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Colorful Transparent wings.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Crowned lemur (Eulemur coronatus) female 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Rosa 'Nostalgie' (d.j.b) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Variegated golden frog (Mantella baroni) Ranomafana.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Massif de Lherz 02.jpg, featured[edit]

File:Safety Last (1923).webm, featured[edit]

File:Ulm Münster Westturm Helm innen 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Carraca lila (Coracias caudata), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 30.jpg, featured[edit]

Alt[edit]

File:Castle of Chenonceau 41.jpg, not featured[edit]

File:Jabirú africano (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis), delta del Okavango, Botsuana, 2018-07-31, DD 11.jpg, featured[edit]