Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2022

File:Anémona de mar (Condylactis aurantiaca), Pistol Bay, Pafos, Chipre, 2021-12-12, DD 12.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2022 at 20:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Golden anemone (Condylactis aurantiaca), Pistol Bay, Paphos, Cyprus. This species of anemone is found only in the Mediterranean Sea in depths of up to 80 metres. The base is attached to a rock, stone or shell and the column immersed in sediment, usually sand or gravel, with only the oral disc and tentacles visible. The oral disc may reach 12 centimetres (4.7 in), the overall diameter with the tentacles spread out is around 30 centimetres (12 in) and each tentacle is around 8 centimetres (3 in) long, green to yellow in colour, and sometimes greyish. They often have bands of white and other colours, and purple tips. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question what causes the green shadows please? The images I Google online do all have purple tips, and look quite different to this image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp: Valid point, It come from the shadows of the lighting I had to use (26 m deep). I fixed it. Poco a poco (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC) PD: I also retouched the WB and made it a bit warmer.[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish it weren't so noisy at the corners, but you were deep underwater. Still looks very Lovecraftian to me. Daniel Case (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive, reminds me of Haeckel’s Kunstformen der Natur. --Aristeas (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution and impressive Cmao20 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm having trouble getting excited about a not-that-sharp octopus, regardless of the difficulties of underwater photography, but this is a sharp photo with nice details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa

File:Arctium tomentosum - Kulna.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2022 at 06:27:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Carduoideae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great as usual; attractive colors and light. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lupe (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light and very detailed (once again) -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well executed focus-stacking --Tagooty (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Carduoideae

File:Kuradisild jõuluvalgustusega 2021. aasta detsembris.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2022 at 10:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Estonia
Info created by Sillerkiil - uploaded by Sillerkiil - nominated by Sillerkiil -- Sillerkiil (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sillerkiil (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image needs perspective correction as well as sharpness. --August Geyler (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’d have chosen a tighter crop (see suggestion) --Kreuz schnabel 15:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical issues aside, it doesn't stand out enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buteo jamaicensis in flight at Llano Seco-1520.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2022 at 20:57:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus_:_Buteo
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing capture; the big eye is impressive! -- Radomianin (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, that's special! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent! --Ivar (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wallhanger.--Ermell (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 16:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Aristeas (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hulged (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tagooty (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! Cmao20 (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hyla japonica sep01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2022 at 19:55:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Hylidae (Tree Frogs)
Info Japanese tree frog (Hyla japonica). Created & uploaded by 池田正樹 (Ikeda Masaki) - nominated by Lupe -- Lupe (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- Lupe (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The subject is wonderful, but unfortunately the photo is full of sensor spots. --Stepro (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah. 池田正樹, please get rid of the spots. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

now Support Many thanks to Aristeas. I really like this pic, and don't think it is to soft. --Stepro (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will support if the above issues are fixed. Also I think the foreground could do with being cropped. Cmao20 (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will try to fix these spots (just letting you know to avoid that two people do the same work …) --Aristeas (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It will still be too soft, so may not be worth your time, Aristeas. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I hope I have got them all. – I tend to agree, Charles. But since removing stains is easy and several people like the picture, I thought I’d do them the favour. --Aristeas (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support When low the ISO is not posible, I preffer sensor noise because is information usefull than a artificial AI filter that allways destroy information --Wilfredor (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the edited version. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ... I don't see any spots in the image now. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft. --Tagooty (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still undecided, but it would be nice if the flowers were identified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surely better to ask. Why is the frog on the flower? Answer: because someone put it there. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I didn't take the picture I don't know which flower it is or whether the frog was put on it for the picture. However Japanese tree frogs are often found on vegetation (engl. Wikipedia: "These tree frogs are commonly found in rice paddies, and rest during the day on rice leaves and other broad-leaved vegetation."), so it wouldn't be impossible to find it coincidentally or at least I would say it's not unnatural behavior. Also look at the species category with lots of frogs on vegetation. Lupe (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetation, yes. Flower, no. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a frog cares for the difference. Lupe (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. A frog would be unlikely to choose to reveal itself on a bright red background. Moving the frog is fine, but putting it on a red flower is just silly. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what is "unlikely"?. It's already unlikely since most vegetation is green. Frogs certainly react more to movement than color. So I belive they would jump on red surfaces, see also other examples frog on red apple, frog on red flower #1 #2, #3 Lupe (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Irrespective of this discussion, I find the foreground too distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians#Family : Hylidae (Tree Frogs)

File:Oriental honey buzzard Mudumalai Mar21 DSC01405.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2022 at 15:48:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Family_:_Accipitridae_(Buzzards,_Eagles,_hawks_and_Kites)
Info Oriental or Crested honey buzzard (Pernis ptilorhynchus). There are no FP's of genus Pernis, so I've linked to the Gallery for Family Accipitridae. Nominated earlier but withdrawn after comments that the sky was too purplish. I've corrected the WB based on photo of the scene taken with an iPhone. Created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The raptor blends into the dry season foliage, but stands out against the deep blue sky. The up-looking pose is unusual for a raptor. -- Tagooty (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version looks way more natural Lupe (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 18:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The leaves in the background aren't ideal, but it's a nice shot. Charlesjsharp (talk)
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sky is much better than in previous versions --Bijay Chaurasia (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still find the foliage, which is about the same color as the bird's feathers, distracting, but I won't oppose as a single vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Family_:_Accipitridae_(Buzzards,_Eagles,_hawks_and_Kites)

File:Village weaver (Ploceus cucullatus cucullatus) female and male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2022 at 19:40:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Ploceidae (Weavers)
Info Male village weavers build a succession of nests in the hope of attracting a female. Living in a colony increases his chances of attracting a female, but only if his building skills are up to it. Here a female is checking out his handywork. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As diligently as he toils, I believe he will win her heart :) -- Radomianin (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Nice that you captured the whole scene. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hulged (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Irresistible once the context is clear. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Daniel Case that context is helpful. Would suggest info notes for this nomination be added as extra info in the image description. --GRDN711 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one Cmao20 (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Ploceidae (Weavers)

File:Lauda - Altstadt - Marienkirche - Innenansicht mit Blick zum Altar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2022 at 11:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info I thought this was a really beautiful church with some exceptional artwork and captured with a nice golden light. created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, Cmao20, for the nomination and all of you for your support! --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2021-01-15 Eberspächer Luge World Cup Oberhof 1DX 4893 by Stepro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2022 at 14:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info Jan Eichhorn (luge trainer) pictured through ring light in heavy snowfall; created, uploaded and nominated by Stepro
Support -- Stepro (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me it's really an unusual composition, but interesting and eye-catching. The blurred ring gives the whole image more depth and focus. Additionally, the scene reminds me of the genre "Behind The Scenes Photography". The technical quality is also very good. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are dust spots on top. What exactly is this ring and what is its purpose other than to create some unusual setting? --A.Savin 22:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing to this. I removed the two dust spots. This is a normal ring light (ultimately a lamp). It was used here to illuminate the trainer's face for a video recording. The video camera was to my right, he's looking right there. I just use this setting for an unusual shot. --Stepro (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Publicity of DHL is too much distracting to me --Wilfredor (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- My goal is to represent reality as well as possible. In reality, athletes and officials wear advertising on their clothing. --Stepro (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it would be better off cropped to be more of a square with the ringlight more centered. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but I see no advantage in cropping it. The telling background would get lost. --Stepro (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a striking composition to me. Cropping of part of the ring and the positioning in the circle detract, IMO. --Tagooty (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The asymmetry of the bottom crop of the ring light bugs me, too. Good photo but I'm not feeling it as an FP. I would have preferred a square photo with even crops of the ring light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I just do not understand the composition --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pintaflores Queen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2022 at 19:03:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created and uploaded by Fpj455 - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the colors --Kritzolina (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wie Kritzolina. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hulged (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SupportBijay Chaurasia (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best images from Wiki Loves Folklore 2021. --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This sort of background would be too distracting for any subject but this one. Daniel Case (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lupe (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and colorful -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile Cmao20 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 19:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Events

File:Cuban tree frog (Osteopilus septentrionalis) 5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2022 at 22:25:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Hylidae (Tree Frogs)
Info Chilling in the afternoon on Grand Cayman. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Interesting composition, however, square composition and the leg out of focus or branch in background distracting --Wilfredor (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wilfredor's positive remarks, and the out-of-focus leg is not a problem to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --IamMM (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The eye is in focus and, imo, crucial. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny.--Ermell (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like the pose. Daniel Case (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support So lazy :-) Basile Morin (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pose. --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in spite of the out of focus leg Cmao20 (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking posture! --Tagooty (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians#Family : Hylidae (Tree Frogs)

File:Tractor Vale Pereiro january 2022-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2022 at 00:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Other_land_vehicles
Info Composition in brown, blue and a little green, with a tractor. Cercal, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition Cmao20 (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lupe (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but no wow-factor to me. The gallery "land vehicles" seems inappropriate as this is mostly farmland or scenery. --Tagooty (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tagooty. -- Karelj (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow factor for me. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The trees in the rear are a little aggressively sharpened. But other than that, maybe I'm seeing it relative to the last two nominations I reviewed (and opposed), of which this almost seems to be a combination of their better aspects. There's a sort of poetry to this scene that I can't quite explain. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Daniel. No matter what the outcome will be (you know I like to provoke), it's good to know that someone else detected poetry in this scene! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Yann (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I've looked at this a bunch of times, and it's not really working for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vale Pereiro Janeiro 2022-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2022 at 00:18:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal
Info Composition in brown and blue with a house, near the end of the day. Traditional house in Alentejo, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I think I see what you were going for here but I don't find it anything like as rewarding to look at as your other nomination. I think my problem is that the leading lines don't really...lead anywhere. For me a portrait format might not have been the right way to go here. Cmao20 (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mmmh, I think a carefully composed square crop might work as well. --El Grafo (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same Lupe (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one does work for me. The leading lines lead to the right of the house. Really harmonious composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I am still going forth and back about this one. One the one hand I love the simplicity and the contrast between the structure of the sky and the structure of the field; on the other hand I always stumble over the crop. (IMHO El Grafo’s idea of a square crop could be an ideal solution.) --Aristeas (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neocancilla clathrus 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2022 at 08:38:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Mitridae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family : Mitridae

File:Vàm Long Hải - Cái Bè, Tiền Giang, Vietnam.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2022 at 01:40:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the gallery here>]]
Info created by Khả Vân Đại Hãn - uploaded by Khả Vân Đại Hãn - nominated by Khả Vân Đại Hãn -- Khả Vân Đại Hãn (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Khả Vân Đại Hãn (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi there. It is quite a complicated process to nominate an image here. There are a set of guidelines. But a better place to start would be Commons:Quality images candidates. Good luck (ps corrrect the tilt first). Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ankara asv2021-10 img15 Atakule.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2022 at 17:44:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Turkey
Info Blue hour view of Atakule, a TV tower in Ankara. All by me --A.Savin 17:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 17:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See suggested crop ... it gets rid of most of the empty street at bottom and allows the tower to be the unquestioned subject. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Nevermind. --A.Savin 16:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kampen, stadsbrug. 10-01-2022. (actm.) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2022 at 16:45:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Netherlands
Info Stadsbrug (Kampen) is a lifting bridge over the IJssel. (Lifting section).
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normal image with nothing special --Wilfredor (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice structure and composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan --Kritzolina (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lupe (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different whose charm is revealed in detail. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The golden wheels and the warm sunlight make the bridge look like a sculpture. --Aristeas (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice enough lighting and structure in preview, but comparably poor quality for current standards IMHO (noisy all over, much sharpening applied, bright parts look overexposed) at less than 10 MP. --Kreuz schnabel 09:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wilfredor --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant weak oppose Interesting idea, but per Kreuz the technical problems are too much for an FP ... there's an awful lot of noise at the lower left. Support Better now. Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.@Kreuzschnabel and Daniel Case: New upload. Noise locally reduced.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very good composition. But resolution and the resulting level of detail are borderline. Perhaps this was cropped a bit to much. --August Geyler (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is everything here. I am not really seeing the technical problems to be honest, though. Cmao20 (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 --IamMM (talk) 05:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Like the image and agree with QI and VI ratings but IMO this bridge does not have enough wow for FP - sorry. --GRDN711 (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Unteroberndorf ABS Nürnberg-Ebensfeld Betonarbeiter-20160622-RM-085134.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2022 at 22:13:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info Concrete workers on the ABS Nuremberg-Ebensfeld. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me unusual but interesting: Harmonious circular effect, the ends of the rebar are additionally giving direction to the main motif. The entire impression is visible in full-screen view. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above ---Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Radomianin. Framing at its best. --Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --August Geyler (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The framing makes the image distinct. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Cmao20 (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would really prefer it without the frame closer up. I find the frame distracting not "giving direction" --Lupe (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People at work

File:2018-02-02 Junior World Championships Luge Altenberg 2018 – Female by Sandro Halank–061.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2022 at 11:21:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual snow sports
Info 33rd Junior World Championship Luge, Altenberg 2018: Adriana Adam ; created, uploaded and nominated by Sandro Halank -- Sandro Halank (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sandro Halank (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A straightforward sports shot, I don’t see anything special about it. The white edge on the left is distracting. --Kreuz schnabel 14:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz, good photo but IMO doesn't stand out. Cmao20 (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know whether this is an FP or not, but the main feeling I get from this is that she looks uncomfortable and concerned to my eyes. Did she finish OK? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Hulged (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:CN 8015, 5690 and 5517 Hinton - Jasper.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2022 at 07:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition --Tagooty (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as usual Cmao20 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Once again a nice contrast between the vivid colours of the train and the relaxed colours of the landscape. --Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition and the train driver is even waving to the photographer Lupe (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Cloister of the Saint Stephen cathedral of Cahors 23.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2022 at 10:11:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see any reason, for this picture nomination, sorry. -- Karelj (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but sorry, I really just don't find the motif at all outstanding, there are so many ceilings of religious buildings that have more interesting features than this Cmao20 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:The paddling surfers under crepuscular rays.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2022 at 07:32:02

Info Came across this, like other delisting candidates I've recently uncovered, while doing some categorization work recently. I can see how it might have been impressive 11 years ago, but it isn't now. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Daniel Case (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Still a good photo, not at all an obvious delisting candidate to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- hockei (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the best, but still OK. It's difficult to compare an 11 year old photograph with today's technical equipment. --XRay 💬 19:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep according to XRay's reasoning.-- Radomianin (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oh, I've seen far far worse FPs to delist before this one :-) Basile Morin (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really don't see what's wrong with this one, the light is lovely Cmao20 (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might like it more if the vertical orientation weren't so jarringly at odds with the strong horizontals in the image. And frankly, it just doesn't stand out from our many other images of cloud-obscured sun reflecting on water (I guess I shall have to find some to nominate to make the point that we do have better images, even if they are technically inferior). Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Hulged (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Daniel Case (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salmonete de fango (Mullus barbatus), Cynthiana, Pafos, Chipre, 2021-12-11, DD 16.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2022 at 17:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order_:_Perciformes_(Perch-like_Fishes)
Info 13 centimetres (5.1 in) long red mullet (Mullus barbatus), Cynthiana, Paphos, Cyprus. This species of goatfish can be found in the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea and the northeastern and central eastern Atlantic Ocean, where its range extends from Scandinavia southwards to Senegal. It is a demersal fish and occurs at depths ranging from 10 to 328 m (30 to 1,080 ft). It can grow to a standard length of 30 cm (12 in), but a more common length is about half that and is carnivorous, the diet consisting mainly of polychaete worms, bivalve molluscs and crustaceans. The flesh of the red mullet is much esteemed and it is the target of fisheries, especially in the Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and northeastern and central eastern Atlantic Ocean. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know ... this one's just not as special to me as your other ones. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think that I 've to agree with you here...Poco a poco (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pulpo patudo (Callistoctopus macropus), Cynthiana, Pafos, Chipre, 2021-12-11, DD 26.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2022 at 21:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda
Info White-spotted octopus (Callistoctopus macropus), Cynthiana, Paphos, Cyprus. This species of octopus can be found in shallow areas of the Mediterranean Sea, the warmer parts of the eastern and western Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the Indo-Pacific region. This octopus feeds on small organisms which lurk among the branches of corals and grows to a mantle length of 20 cm (8 in) with a total length of 150 cm (59 in). The first pair of arms are approx. 1 metre (3.3 ft) metre or so long, and are much longer than the remaining three pairs. The arms are all connected by a shallow web. This octopus is red, with white blotches on its body, and paired white spots on its arms. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know ... it just doesn't stand out for me like some of your other underwater pictures have. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case: It does to me. I've seen maybe 50 octopus underwater in my life. Only one of them was not a common octopus (this one),...Poco a poco (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked the material we had so far on Commons. Before I uploaded 4 images of this exemplar we had so far only 2 images in the corresponding category of this species one of 800KB resolution (taken from this website, where I couldn't find any free license, so a possible license violation) uploaded in 2009 and another one of 1100KB (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) uploaded in 2004. My candidate has a resolution of 16MB. On the other side we have in Category:Octopus vulgaris 151 images not counting those from zoos. --Poco a poco (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lupe (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda

File:Marian Anderson.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2022 at 10:43:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Carl Van Vechten - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Historically important photo. Any idea how big the print is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: My feeling is fairly big, 5 to 8" wide , with the height whatever that works out to, but that's kind of an educated guess based on dust size and the appearance of the corners. Of course, the print, whatever the size, can only be as detailed as the negative, so I think we're getting all detail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great person and pose, but unfortunately this photo lacks sharpness --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sharp for the time it was created. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Yes, a little soft, but I find it compelling. I admit maybe I'm not judging objectively enough, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no, I don't dig it at all. I like the pose and how the skin tones are handled. But those nicely nuanced mid-tones are lost among the strong contrast between the upper left corner and the dress. It's like trying to listen to the radio while there are two people yelling at each other. I also don't see the point in including so much of the dress when there is practically nothing to be seen in this area because it's all pitch black. A head-and-shoulders type crop could work for me, but this leaves me unimpressed. --El Grafo (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose Historically important and Adam did his usual bangup job on the restoration. But the sharpness ... maybe it was the time but we've had pictures from that era that were better. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly feels like the paper could have resolved more detail than the lens (or the film?) did provide. And I guess, purposefully soft portraits were not yet a thing in the 40ies, right? El Grafo (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Encyclopedically valuable. Buidhe (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Women

File:Phyllostachys Aureosulcata 'Spectabilis -20200524-RM-073500.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2022 at 07:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Poaceae
Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination.--Ermell (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support With miniature landscape in the water drops :) -- Radomianin (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like it's making a rhetorical gesture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure why the plant itself is a bit noisy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting management of the light -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 18:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking colours, composition and detail. --Tagooty (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Poaceae

File:Rosalind Goodrich Bates (1931).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2022 at 01:16:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#People_at_work
Info Unknown photographer - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info It may be worth mentioning this is a really trendy style of photography for the time. Glowing light that people emerge into is very 1930. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good portrait of a very significant person. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - --GRDN711 (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have cloned out the paper at bottom right. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Christian Ferrer: I'm always hesitant to change things that I'm reasonably sure were actually there. I can't guarantee perfection - for example, it's hard to tell damage to objects from damage to the film sometimes, likewise some small bright spots I removed could have been genuine reflections - but I try my best to be as true to life as I can manage. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cloning out such elements on own works, why not, but on historical photographs, never! This would not be restoration, but rather derivative work -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People_at_work

File:Serpiente en el parque de Jaraguá 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2022 at 14:54:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Suborder_:_Serpentes_(Snakes)
Info I had to reduce the image size and shutter speed to be able to calculate this precise moment, I am aware that the size is very small but it was also a very difficult photo to take. .All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I completely appreciate the technical challenges associated but also the resolution is below the minimum standard of 2mpx outlined in the FP guidelines, so I find it hard to support Cmao20 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20, but a good VIC candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support Agree that < 2 mpx is too small, but what a photo ;–). It’s really funny (at least for me), and it’s wonderful to illustrate some abstract human problems – greed, avarice, corruption … In German you say “er kriegt den Hals nicht voll” if you want to characterize somebody as insatiable and greedy; this is a perfect illustration. --Aristeas (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but too small -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garden strawberry, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2022 at 13:47:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Single
Halved

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. Do you have a new Nikon? Great quality :) -- Radomianin (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! And not magnified, just super-macro, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radomianin & Ikan Kekek: you are both correct, these are full reso photos (without additional magnifiyng) of my new camera. --Ivar (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great quality by a very good full frame camera. Good choice :) -- Radomianin (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically gorgeous at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again very appetizing. --Aristeas (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support ideally you would get a fully ripe strawberry, but I realize many of them are eaten at this stage of ripeness. Buidhe (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)

File:North face of Mount Shasta at sunset-2175.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2022 at 03:01:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#California
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Majestic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture of a legendary mountain. The veil of clouds further emphasizes its mystique. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simple and beautiful. The clouds are fascinating -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support exquisite! --Ivar (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 18:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The sunlit upper slopes of the mountain look a little weird and unnatural. But that's such a small enough part of the overall image as to not oppose. Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin and Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking capture. --Tagooty (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 10:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pez corneta pintada (Fistularia commersonii), Pistol Bay, Pafos, Chipre, 2021-12-12, DD 08.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2022 at 22:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order_:_Syngnathiformes_(Pipefishes_and_Seahorses)
Info Baby bluespotted cornetfish (Fistularia commersonii) of a length of approx. 15 centimetres (5.9 in), Pistol Bay, Paphos, Cyprus. This very long and slender reef-dweller belongs to the same order as the pipefishes and seahorses. It is widespread in the tropical and subtropical waters of the Indo-Pacific, including the Red Sea. In 2000, its presence was reported in the Mediterranean Sea; since then, it has continued to disperse and is now well established in some areas. This species is considered as part of the Lessepsian migration. The bluespotted cornetfish grows to a length of 1.6 m (5.2 ft), but the average is around 1 metre (3 ft 3 in). It's usually a solitary predator, stalking and feeding on small fishes, crustaceans, and squid. Don't ask me how I managed to get the tiny head focused, a lucky shot, I guess. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed very impressive to get an image that is well composed and reasonably sharp even at such high resolution Cmao20 (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of the fish is out of focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only tiny part of the fish is in focus. --Ivar (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. This would definitely be a valued image tho. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- Karelj (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soca river in Trenta (3).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2022 at 18:16:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Slovenia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stones at the left are too much lightened and not detailed enough for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michielverbeek; New version uploaded, Tournasol7 (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Does not have enough FP wow for me. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadow on the mountain makes it a no. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view but not a great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:CZE-20-Czechoslovak National Bank-10 Korun (1927).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2022 at 18:23:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Money
Info created by Otto a Ruzicka, Pardubise and TB, Alphonse Mucha - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Others#Money

File:Cappadocia Aerial View Landscape.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2022 at 15:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Turkey
Info I found this suitable for FP because of the beautiful golden light, the way that the path acts as a leading line towards the mountains in the distance, and the contrast in the landscape between the fields on the left hand side and the unusual cliff formations on the right. created by Benh - uploaded by Benh - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree --Lupe (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I'm unpersuaded this is one of the very best photos on the site. It's a little hazy and could be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a fantasy setting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating landscape. Most photos I have seen from that area focus only on the bizarre rocks, this picture shows their situation. Some parts on the right are in the shadow, but the contrast between golden light on the left and bluish shadows on the right intensifies the ‘fantasy film set’ look mentionend by KoH. --Aristeas (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I agree with Ikan Kekek --Tagooty (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose This does a lot of things right by the standards of landscape images (it makes excellent use of raking light, for one thing) and I take Aristeas's point, but ... perhaps this has overdone it. We see so much of the landscape that an uninitiated viewer must expand it to full size to see those distinctive rock formations that give the area its international reputation. So, we are left judging this image at thumbnail by the standards of landscape images in general, and I am sorry to say that for me, it comes up short in that area, notwithstanding the photographer's commendable efforts.
It definitely should be submitted for QI and VI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for the nom Cmao20. One of my favorite from my trip to Cappadocia, which is a great place I recommend to landscape photographers :) - Benh (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, Benh. Are you sure you don't want to support it yourself, though? Cmao20 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to interfere, even though I really like it. It doesn't really matter whether it gets the star or not. Interesting reviews. - Benh (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wonderful golden light and the scenery is unlike anything I see everyday -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ely Cathedral Lady Chapel, Cambridgeshire, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2022 at 21:36:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom
Info The Lady Chapel of Ely Cathedral, built beginning in 1321 by Alan of Walsingham and linked to the rest of the cathedral by a covered walkway. Other FPs of Ely Cathedral exist but none of this chapel. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful mood of the light-flooded interior. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Wassermühle -- 2022 -- 9774 (bw).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2022 at 14:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 14:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 14:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tells the tale better in grayscale than I think it would have in color. Daniel Case (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see any reason, for this picture nomination, sorry. -- Karelj (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Karelj --Tagooty (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case Cmao20 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I'm not convinced either, it isn't talking to me... Poco a poco (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Real art. --Yann (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose “Art is what makes life more interesting than art.” (Robert Filliou). This wall keeps me prisoner of this dark mechanical structure. It is such a sad and desperate content in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well said (by Robert Filliou). -- Karelj (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware that some images are considered quite controversial. However, I think that such pictures should also find their way to the FPC. Discussions can broaden the perspective of photography. --XRay 💬 13:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. And some of your "abstract" photos like 1, 2 or 3 work for me. The main difference I notice is the presence of sun rays in the other ones. For this picture to work, I would need something like an intriguing leaf on the wall or a big snail on the wheel -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:-) --XRay 💬 04:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest tyranossaurus rex or nice naked girl... But everything is better that origin image of this discussion. :-( -- Karelj (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soba-Noodles-Deliveryman-Tokyo-1935.png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2022 at 23:47:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Soba noodles deliveryman in Tokyo, 1935.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Mainichi Shimbun - uploaded by Artanisen - nominated by Tai123.123 -- Tai123.123 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tai123.123 (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Completely insane balance, and I'd be inclined to support, but the source link is broken and I'd like to see that fixed before I vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek Done! Tai123.123 (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support because png --Andrei (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support (an entirely apt choice of words in this (ahem) case). Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks pretty cool except the fact that the file is a png, not a jpg. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People at work

File:Tokio Obsttorte Modell-20091020-RM-101431.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2022 at 09:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created & uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing background and overall presentation --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom.--Ermell (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Uoaei1, I think that for FP it needs a bit more of love Poco a poco (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sure this would be sharper at full size if you were taking it today, but it looks really good at 60% and still looks good at full size. As for the background: You folks understand that these plastic models of food are in the windows of eateries and can't be moved by the photographer at will, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Awkward background -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomaten P1290762.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2022 at 18:08:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink # Tomatoes
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Metal frame and tree etc. in the background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too cluttered, both the foreground and the background. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH and Charles. Good QI but not an FP for the reasons they state. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH, Charles and Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trier Quant Marktkreuz.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2022 at 09:46:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Towns
Info Etching Market cross of Trier, created before 1918 by Fritz Quant - reproduced from an original etching, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05.
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good reproduction which allows to study the applied graphical technique. The gallery link did not work, I have taken the liberty to propose a working one. --Aristeas (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas - nice closeup of an etching. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable contribution. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Towns

File:View of Krn (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2022 at 10:08:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Slovenia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this photo very beautiful. Among other things, the streaming clouds really help. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the foreground and background, and the overall composition. Another image that for me evokes a Roger Dean Yes cover, without some of the more fantastical elements. Daniel Case (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of it is in shadow, and no element in the composition strikes me like something special to be featured. Boring colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Maybe not the most special but I think it's still OK for FP per Ikan and Daniel Cmao20 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've to agree with Basile Morin. The overall result is not convincing to me, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile Morin. IMO - good image but not outstanding. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others. Yann (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good image but not out of the ordinary. The FPs in the "Gallery" are much better. --Tagooty (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Suboptimal direction of lighting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adenium Seed Pappus Black Uthandi Aug21 D72 20862.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2022 at 13:31:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Apocynaceae
Info Adenium obesum seed (length 1 cm) with double pappus (overall length 8 cm). Created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks a bit like a fishing fly. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and educative. --Aristeas (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Apocynaceae

File:Hooksiel-Strand-Riesenrad-Unwetter-2021.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2022 at 21:17:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beach of Hooksiel (Wangerland) with big wheel just before a storm

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other
Info all by Tuxyso / Beach of Hooksiel (Wangerland) with big wheel just before a storm -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special for me, sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's funny how no-one is rushing to get home, but the leftmost part of the photo isn't really working for me, compositionally. A photo cut off just to the left of the 3rd white wind turbine and the aquamarine metal structure (garbage can?) might get my vote, but I'm not sure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, sorry. Nice photo but IMO not outstanding enough for FP Cmao20 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates//2 Commons:Featured picture candidates//2

File:Graddiselva river in Junkerdalen, Saltdal, Nordland, Norway, 2018 September.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2022 at 06:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Norway#Northern Norway (Nord-Norge/Nord-Noreg)
Info created & uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful. Good find. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant weak oppose I do not blame you for taking this. However, the light doesn't quite work here. The trees at upper left look unnatural even though it does not appear that was the result of any editing mishaps, and the WB just as a whole feels off. Daniel Case (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this unexpexted nomination. Even as the photographer, I tend to agree with the point by Daniel and will take it into account. Although, i'm a little busy now, I try to take a look tomorrow. The fact, that polarizer was used, may have resulted some oddities in the look. But the polarizer also reduced haze and made the scenery more transparent, which trade-off I do like. White balance was attempted to counter the shady weather situation, instead of turning it too cold. (Otherwise especially the clouds would go a bit too blue without local color alterations, which I very rarely do in post). Will see, what I can do. --Ximonic (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I also think it may be oversaturated or a bit off, but it's so beautiful, and I trust you to do whatever is needed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's updated. I decided to rework it from raw but ended up with almost identical results with quite minimal edits. I took vibrancy to some minus degrees and made the color temprerature just a little colder. In the process, some ghosting effects were fixed on leaves which I first didn't notice. It seems that almost what ever approach I take, this will be the look of the photograph anyway, so I guess the polarizer makes the picture look something that is very hard to change. --Ximonic (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks better to me. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --A.Savin 15:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This look downwards does not work for me. Also quite low resolution, probably downsampled. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive light with dramatic clouds -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing colours Cmao20 (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- hockei (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile and Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good lighting. However, detail is lacking in the trees. The tall green tree on the left is oversaturated, appears to have green CA. --Tagooty (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tagooty. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Norway#Northern Norway (Nord-Norge/Nord-Noreg)

File:Kuang Si Falls with submerged tree in turquoise water near Luang Prabang Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2022 at 02:54:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thoughtful composition Cmao20 (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice shot, but I wouldn't have included the bare foreground tree which is growing at a distracting angle.. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hulged (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 03:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice that you avoided the saturated colors one usually sees in images like this. Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition of this photo. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Li Phi falls at dusk with colorful sky and clouds in Don Khon Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2022 at 02:57:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice wide angle shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely unworldly effect --Tagooty (talk) 09:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special; I like the effects of long exposures. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going to steal Daniel Case's usual reaction, because this really reminds me of Yes record sleeve art. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support magnificent use of a UWA lense - Benh (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, one of the (IMHO rare) cases where an extreme UWA is really good. --Aristeas (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hulged (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd have probably tried to reduce the distortion in the bottom corners, but overall a strong FP Poco a poco (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Where does the blue-violet spot come from (see note)? --Llez (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this hue appears on my RAW, I assume it is a flare, due to the contre-jour. Fixed. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never thought it was possible to make a picture of falls from upstream work. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty cool :-) --SHB2000 (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gele trilzwam (Tremella mesenterica) op dode tak van een eik 15-01-2021. (actm.) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2022 at 16:39:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Tremellaceae
Info Yellow fungus ( Tremella mesenterica ) on dead branch. Focus stack of 21 photos.}}
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pretty, nice details. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support … and impressive colours. --Aristeas (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Ikan and Aristeas. Like an appetizing jelly :-) Basile Morin (talk) 02:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 03:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've marked a small focus stacking error. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Tremellaceae

File:Personal card of a participant of the 1950 USSR football championship - Vladimir Kruglov (Torpedo Moscow).webp, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2022 at 19:52:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Historical#1940-1950
Info Personal card of a participant of the 1950 USSR football championship / created by unknown - uploaded by JukoFF - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The left edge of the background is gray -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful VI but no wow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and Basile. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Very well-done technically, a likely QI/VI, but it's not aesthetically striking nor historically significant. At least not as indicated by the nomination, and not self-evident. Daniel Case (talk) 07:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plains-wanderer female 8173.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2022 at 18:09:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Pedionomus
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive light. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is impressive about the light please? Looks like a normal double flash. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Poco a poco (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I think a square crop would improve the composition (see image note) -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but JJ Harrison should be the one to decide if he is visiting FPC. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of the rarity. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ch. Ferrer and Charles -- Radomianin (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Changed from oppose) I would support the crop. Daniel Case (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Without crop.--Ermell (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yeriho (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Pedionomus

File:Pancharatna Temple - Royal Quarters - Garh Panchakot.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2022 at 22:24:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#India
Info created by Sumitsurai - uploaded by Sumitsurai - nominated by Sumitsurai -- Sumit Surai (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sumit Surai (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obstructing branches, and ugly rubbish lying on the ground -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Reason listed by Basile Morin above and the unappealing colour palette Tai123.123 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Interesting idea but just too cluttered to work. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midtown Manhattan from Weehawken September 2021, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2022 at 04:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Midtown Manhattan, afternoon
Midtown Manhattan, sunset
Midtown Manhattan, dusk

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should you not replace your three existing FPs if these are better (which I think they are)? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: My three existing FPs are of Lower Manhattan, a completely different skyline. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ah! I didn't look closely enough. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice serie! --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high resolution each. Nice clouds at sunset, good management of the light at dusk -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support These are three pretty cool sets of skyscrapers. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! --Aristeas (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a wonderful set. I'm really found of the last two, with their beautiful light and reflections. I bit sad the Empire State Building is hidden. Wonder if it would have been possible to have it? - Benh (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was the best angle, all things considered, to maximize the angle of view without including parts of the pier on the Jersey side. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, the new buildings in the Hudson Yards area of way west Midtown have gone a long way toward screwing up the view of the classic Art Deco buildings of the more central and eastern areas of Midtown from New Jersey. That's just a fact of life that needs to be documented, and historical documentation is one of the things that panoramas like these are important for. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was fairly sure this was the best compromise u could get :) Thanks. Benh (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Having grown up in northeastern NJ, this is the view I (and many others once similarly situated) know as the last thing you see before you start dropping into the same Lincoln Tunnel helix that Tony Soprano comes out of at the beginning of each episode.
Great work, Tony, you've captured a city in transition, the 20th-century Midtown Manhattan skyline yielding to the 21st-century skyline, in three daily moods. I find it entirely fitting that the iconic Empire State Building is almost entirely hidden in this view by a building under construction. I can recognize so many of the buildings here, but while I recognize so many more (like that big one on Central Park South, I can't remember its address) I'd be at a loss to name them, and it's been so long since I saw the city from this viewpoint (yes, I have been down there about ... twice since the pandemic started, but only by Hudson Line train from the north) that there are others I'm not familiar with at all. But I see the more rectilinear styles of the last century yielding the spotlight here to the newer look I have elsewhere called "Shardism", a look that just seems so much fitting lately.
I shall have to go down to Weehawken again sometime soon and take this in myself. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great set! --Tagooty (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portrait of Juanita Hall as Bloody Mary in "South Pacific" - Carl Van Vechten.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2022 at 11:52:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Musicians_and_singers_performing
Info created by Carl Van Vechten - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure about this one. Definitely a great VI, but the file is much larger than necessary and doesn't seem that well focused to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ikan Kekek that it's a good VI, but not for a FP. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, it's by a famous lhotographer, of a famous show. If that doesn't justify it, I really don't know what does. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely aware of the historic importance of South Pacific. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Τριόπετρα 2950.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2022 at 10:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Greece
Info All by C messier. Aerial view of Cape Triopetra, in South Crete. The view is from northwest, over the large Triopetra beach. Support -- C messier (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting rock structure, splendid view, “very Greek” (the sea shows the violet shade praised by Homer, the coast shows the roughness described by Seferis in his Μυθιστόρημα poems). --Aristeas (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas Daniel Case (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Aristeas, too. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Julian Alps from Vrsic Pass (1).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2022 at 17:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Slovenia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice photo, but personally I like this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Quality_images_candidates#/media/File:Julian_Alps_from_Vrsic_Pass_(3).jpg better.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Famberhorst as the bottom crop feels IMHO really tight. --C messier (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but would support the photo Famberhorst links which has better composition and more interesting light Cmao20 (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure about this one, but I would be happy to support the photo suggested by Famberhorst. --Aristeas (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starship SN16.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2022 at 15:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration#Space launch vehicles
Info created by Lars Plougmann - uploaded by CactiStaccingCrane - nominated by CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although there is strong perspective distortion, I think this is warranted considering how big the spacecraft is. The author has done a wonderful panorama stitching here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to support this as a big fan of SpaceX following all their exciting developments! --Granada (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support How phallic ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Granada Cmao20 (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deserving to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The metal structure on the left causes distraction. Anyway this is a rare case where Daniel supported a nomination and I did not. Sorry --IamMM (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crisp sharp. --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I was indeed ready to oppose because of the tight crop but the sharpness is overcompensating that Poco a poco (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yeriho (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IamMM. Tomer T (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration#Space launch vehicles

File:Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, January 2022-2001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2022 at 02:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#California
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 09:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure why you would want to emphasize a man-made construction in a wildlife refuge? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, Charles. It's because these drains are a prominent feature along the auto tour that people take through the refuge. I use most of my pictures for illustrating Wikipedia articles and try to give people an idea of what the place looks like that I'm depicting. Several of California's bird refuges (e.g. Sacramento NWR, Colusa NWR, etc.) have auto tours like this. You drive on a levee over gravel and take pictures out of your car. – Besides educational aspects, I like the quiet, somewhat serene mood of the scene above. Think of this refuge being in the middle of nowhere, in a very sparsely populated area along the border to Oregon, just surrounded by mountains and a couple of volcanoes. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not sold on it despite Frank's helpful reply. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is nothing interesting or special quality of this image. See comment above. -- Karelj (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. --XRay 💬 06:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Basile and XRay, I like the composition, and the colours are very beautiful – similar to the carefully selected colours of some impressionistic painings. --Aristeas (talk) 07:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support according to Frank's convincing explanations. I like the colors and composition, too. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good composition but not striking. The FPs in the Gallery of California are much superior to this one. --Tagooty (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice elegant composition but I wish the background were sharper. Cmao20 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dunno, maybe I somehow don't get it, but while of course it's pretty country, I don't find this a great composition. maybe because while the tree is interesting in itself, it impedes the eyes' movement across the hills and mountains that would otherwise complement the icy curve in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ikan Kekek Poco a poco (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tagooty. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brahminy Kite Perched Prey Kabini Nagarhole Dec21 D72 21603.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2022 at 14:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Family_:_Accipitridae_(Buzzards,_Eagles,_hawks_and_Kites)
Info The bird was intent on enjoying its prey (probably a rodent) in a dead tree in the middle of the reservoir, it did not heed the photographer drifting near in a boat. There are no FP's of genus Haliastur so I've linked the gallery for the family. Created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tagooty (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definition in feathers is missing. Background does no favours to a light-coloured bird. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ per Charles, I like it but unsure whether the above criticisms make it one of the best on Commons. It's nice to have a pic where it's eating its prey though Cmao20 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support ok, fair points made below. Cmao20 (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do we make some allowances for the fact that this is not just a photo of a bird but a photo of a bird eating prey? Or is that mainly at QIC or something? This is a good photo. If we're judging it purely as a picture of a bird, I see the point that pictures of birds can be more pinpoint sharp. I sort of feel like it would be fine as an FP, but it depends on what standards we should be using to judge it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Cmao20: @Charlesjsharp: There are 85 FPs of Hawks, Eagles, Vultures and Relatives. Only 1 of these is a bird eating prey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagooty (talk • contribs)

Support That's a great picture, better than this, but it's also smaller, so I think this photo, which shows a good level of detail even if not the highest level imaginable, deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this FP? I believe the standards should be the same, except we can promote very rare/difficult to get shots of course (see JJH current FPC). Otherwise Should I be nominating this, or this? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My answers: (1) Really striking image, but I lean towards not. (2) I would probably vote for. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 20:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Navneetsharmaiit (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Adarsh Patel (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Family_:_Accipitridae_(Buzzards,_Eagles,_hawks_and_Kites)

File:Kalahari lion (Panthera leo) male cub 4 months.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2022 at 10:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Felidae (Felids)
Info Not the usual cuddly look. He has just had family Sunday Brunch. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good capture (I guess by them as well as by you). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Minimum difference between background and subject of image (nice small kitten!). -- Karelj (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Karelj. I think a close crop to basically a headshot of the animal might work better, if it would be large enough ... the look in his eyes and the blood around his mouth really tell a story that's not as evident at this size. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Isn’t the fact that the lion cub is barely visible against the natural background actually a feature – it protects the cub against enemies and helps the lion to reach its prey because the lion is recognized later? --Aristeas (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The orange colour comes from the sands of the Kalahari. I have a different image (not a crop) which some may prefer. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even better in my view, yes. Let's see if that one succeeds, otherwise the head is worth a nomination. Very striking -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and different Cmao20 (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject not sufficiently distingued from background. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Felidae (Felids)

File:Поля під Касовою горою.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2022 at 18:14:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Agriculture#Ukraine
Info created by Vitalii Bashkatov - uploaded by Vitalii Bashkatov - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unusual gradation in the sky. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I hoped it could be corrected. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and sharpness is below average. --Milseburg (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lower half would be a shoo-in by itself; the upper half is problematic for that large, shadowed distracting area alone, which leaves out the unsharpness and noise up top in addition to the gradation (a grad filter, perhaps?) Charles noted. Daniel Case (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Daniel Case and CharlesJSharp --Tagooty (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing motif and composition outweighs technical quibbles Cmao20 (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Artificial vignetting is imo unfortunate, but the landscape is really outstanding. --Ivar (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the landscape. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 02:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Agriculture#Ukraine

File:Glaskugel -- 2022 -- 9849.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2022 at 06:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 06:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's black and white, but it isn't a black-and-white photographs. The effect is achieved by the white light and the black background. --XRay 💬 06:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 06:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating; the glass ball has a cartoon smiley face :) -- Radomianin (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much black and white for me here, sorry --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is significant blue fringing on the upper edge of the white crescent. I curious to understand what the two circles are? Is this an abstract pattern or demonstration of an optics principle? --Tagooty (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Optics, a long time ago ... I removed the blue fringe with the option of CA removal. I don't think that the reason is CA, but it works. There are some smaller parts in colors other than white and black. I think it's typical for a ball lens. --XRay 💬 10:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. --Tagooty (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks cool. Enough to get my Support Buidhe (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Helped by the faint tinges of color. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know that I'm sold on the curve of the background, which feels like it calls for a slightly different crop, but still squarely (or roundly) in the support column for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Optical_devices

File:Rivula sericealis - Kulna.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2022 at 06:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Erebidae_(Erebid_Moths)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 10:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The head/wings of the moth are not very sharp. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp: everything of the moth is as sharp as possible at full resolution and the subject here is really small (length ca 20 mm). --Ivar (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn oppose due to the small size. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2022| (UTC)
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SupportCmao20 (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Erebidae_(Erebid_Moths)

File:333 Cappadocia1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2022 at 17:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Turkey
Info created and uploaded by Gsahin17 - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful Oppose. Very nice scene, but quality is just too poor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Interesting, but per King too unsharp at the corners. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thumb looks good but in detail the quality is not convincing.--Ermell (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you all for the comments. --IamMM (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:African common toad (Amietophrynus gutturalis) swimming.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2022 at 15:06:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Bufonidae (True Toads)
Info More about the wave patterns than the toad... All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The water has a special tint, that highlights the subject by complementary colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice swimming by a really colorful toad. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Captured at the right moment, complementary colours. --Tagooty (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support All has been said Cmao20 (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hulged (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite intersting subject but visually not special enough + quite unbalanced composition. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm confused by how it could be unbalanced. What's making it unbalanced to you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians#Family : Bufonidae (True Toads)

File:Ankara asv2021-10 img07 Anıtkabir.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2022 at 18:35:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info Changing of the Honour guard in front of the Anıtkabir (Atatürk's tomb), Ankara -- all by me --A.Savin 18:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 18:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shot at the right moment, good angle -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i think soldiers are getting lost/mixed in the crowd --Andrei (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Andrei --Tagooty (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile Cmao20 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, compo doesn't work for me. Buidhe (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm totally distracted by the fact that one soldier isn't wearing his mask properly. --Milseburg (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I get Andrei’s point. However IMHO the crowd is part of the scene, therefore this is OK for me. --Aristeas (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andrei. --Hulged (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose JukoFF (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject works but the background details are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andrew and Milseburg. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Andrei, sorry. The faces almost lining up with the ones in the background makes the composition disturbing. Maybe if the camera had been just a little bit lower to make the foreground ppl stand out ... yes, and the mask mentioned by Milseburg really nails it. Maybe he doesn’t have to wear it properly in open air, but military exercises have to look consistent and uniform. --Kreuz schnabel 19:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other comments Tai123.123 (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grabstätte von Peter Degner 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2022 at 15:18:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Monuments_and_memorials
Info created by August Geyler - uploaded by August Geyler - nominated by Augustgeyler -- August Geyler (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- August Geyler (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and not really sharp --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1. --Peulle (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just the gravestone might have worked, and in slightly different light. Daniel Case (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:MJK 85421 Bergstraße 60 (Goslar).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2022 at 17:53:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info2nd prize in Wiki Loves Monuments Germany 2021. For me attractive light, colours and composition makes this a good candidate. created by Martin Kraft - uploaded by Martin Kraft - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question But do the buildings at left and right improve the photo? I don't know the place, but it looks as if a wider view would be more harmonius. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As far as I know, the streets in Goslar's old town are winding and relatively narrow. The frieze on the left I do not find disturbing in this case, it fits thematically to the main subject. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO the left/right buildings help to get a good impression of the situation of the main subject and “frame” it nicely. --Aristeas (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Aristeas.--Ermell (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think, it's really narrow in such old towns. --Milseburg (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the wall at left ... it's not too distracting and it is honest about the house's environment. Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ausgezeichnet. Die beiden einrahmenden Häuser ordnen den hauptsächlichen Gegenstand des Bildes in den Kontext ein. Das auf der linken Seite befindliche Haus fungiert als Vordergrund, gibt dem Bild Tiefe und erfüllt damit auch eine ästhetische Funktion. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany

File:Sarcococca hookeriana 24-01-2022. (d.j.b).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2022 at 16:16:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Buxaceae
Info Inconspicuous white scented little flowers of the Sarcococca hookeriana. Focus stack of 44 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Buxaceae

File:Gliwice (Glewitz) - town hall by night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2022 at 14:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Underexposed --Wilfredor (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now, not IMO too far from FP level but too dark per Wilfredor and also a little noisy Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cmao (I suppose one could say that since the town has such dark historical associations, pictures of it should be dark, but still ...) Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Male northern cardinal in Central Park (52612).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2022 at 17:20:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Cardinalidae_(Cardinals,_Grosbeaks,_Saltators_and_Allies)
Info Male northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to finally get a well-lit, sharp photo of this bird. Yes, the background is a bit busy, but I think the color provides good separation. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 17:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gray day but great picture of the bird. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pretty, he looks really snuggly :) -- Radomianin (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking colours and sharpness. --Tagooty (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, he reminds me a lot of the female cardinal that my wife and I (rather unusually, but legally) have as a pet. She'd certainly look twice at him ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appealing color -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Quite a colorful one. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cayambe (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Cardinalidae_(Cardinals,_Grosbeaks,_Saltators_and_Allies)

File:Лавовый язык.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2022 at 20:18:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia
Info A forest in Kamchatka, Russia, part of which is swallowed up by a lava flow. / Created by Ted.nsE - uploaded by Ted.nsE - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- while this scenery may be unusual for places other than Kamchatka, it still looks like an ordinary drone shot, and it's not immediately clear what is this hole in the middle and it does not generate wow effect. Categories are completely wrong, going to improve them now, but this should do the nominator or the uploader. --A.Savin 03:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the categories. JukoFF (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m not entirely sold on this yet but the idea is good, and quality is at least much better than most drone shots. --Kreuz schnabel 10:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and striking, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. sorry --IamMM (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. -- Karelj (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above indeed, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pulpo común (Octopus vulgaris), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 46.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2022 at 22:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda
Info Common octopus (Octopus vulgaris), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. This mollusc is the most studied of all octopus species. It is cosmopolitan, that is, a global species, which ranges from the eastern Atlantic, extends from the Mediterranean Sea and the southern coast of England, to the southern coast of South Africa. The common octopus hunts at dusk. Crabs, crayfish, and bivalve molluscs (two-shelled, such as cockles) are preferred, although the octopus eats almost anything it can catch. It is able to change color to blend in with its surroundings, and is able to jump upon any unwary prey that strays across its path. Using its beak, it is able to break into the shells of shelled molluscs. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Cmao20 (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your exisitng FP is much better. If this was a on-land image, we would be saying 'distracting background'. I think the same applies here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. --Ivar (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image. I don't find the background distracting ("It is able to change color to blend in with its surroundings") Lupe (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good image but Oppose per Charles. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lupe. --SHB2000 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. -- Karelj (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lupe. --Aristeas (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Should be a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support There would be something wrong if an octopus is well visible against the background --Llez (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this for the very reason that the camo is shown in use. --Ximonic (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ 22:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JukoFF (talk • contribs)

@JukoFF: I can help adding your missing signature but it's you who must provide a reason for your oppose vote. Btw, don't be too honest and reveal that this is the true reason, that isn't a popular practice here. Poco a poco (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would ask you to keep your guesses to yourself, especially as they are not correct :) Obviously, seeing the octopus in your picture is many times harder than seeing the sun in some of Claude Monet's paintings. JukoFF (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may have something to do with the survival instinct of this species, Llez nailed it in this comment above Poco a poco (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You convinced me:) JukoFF (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Llez. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Class_:_Cephalopoda

File:Boulengerella maculata - Karlsruhe Zoo 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2022 at 07:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family : Ctenoluciidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don’t see any FP-worthy quality here, the whole picture looks hopelessly overprocessed to me. --Kreuz schnabel 09:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is it overprocessed? Comparing it with some other aquarium FPs suggests to me that it is a fine photo of the fish. But I would welcome if somebody who has experience in aquarium photography could comment on the technical quality … --Aristeas (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not an expert either and would withdraw my oppose if proven wrong, but to me, the entire lower side of the fish looks like a smartphone shot 6 years ago - heavily denoised and then re-sharpened. (I am fully aware this photo has not actually been taken with a smartphone.) --Kreuz schnabel 19:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not exceptional, there are better quality images in the Gallery. --Tagooty (talk) 06:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Of this species??? --Llez (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Similar aquarium shots. --Tagooty (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I wish it were a little sharper for this size but still good Cmao20 (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family : Ctenoluciidae

File:Osprey Perched Fish Nagarhole Dec21 D72 21409.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2022 at 06:25:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus_:_Pandion
Info created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Osprey perched on a tree in the Nagarhole National Park tearing apart a fish -- Tagooty (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice capture, but it would be good if you could correct some of that blue fringing on the bird and on the underside of the branch. Cmao20 (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Cmao20: Thanks for the review. --Tagooty (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there anything you can do about the overexposed areas? Poco a poco (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: Thanks for the hint. I reworked from RAW and got some details in the overexposed white feathers. --Tagooty (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flight and Nectaring of specimens of Troides helena (Linnaeus, 1758) – Common Birdwing WLB DSC 0132.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2022 at 14:39:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Papilionidae_(Swallowtails)
Info created by Sandipoutsider - uploaded by Sandipoutsider - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality ~~undeclared composite~~ image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree that it's not of great quality, but how are you able to detect that it's a composite? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doubtful assumption about the photo being a composite, pinging @Sandipoutsider: , the photographer to confirm. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the photographer of the image, I confirm that, this is not a composite image. The specimens where flying high above head. The faster shutter speed, high flash-sync and larger aperture have succeeded in keeping all three specimens relatively sharp and in focus. Thank you--Sandipoutsider (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your response @Sandipoutsider: has made me look again. I have marked the area of the image which, when I look closely, the background noise on the butterfly and background did not seem consistent with one image. Many apologies if I have got this wrong and there has been a lot of selective processing. The RAW image would show my error. The other reason I was doubtful is that all three butterflies are nectaring; they all have their proboscis out and legs down. This is not the normal flight mode for any species. A butterfly curls its proboscis in flight. Check out images online (for this species see Butterflies of India website). How did you trigger the flash using spot metering? The camera did not record the on-camera flash being fired. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someother issues that @Charlesjsharp: didn't metion are the weird DOF and some artifact below the left butterfly. As fas as DOF is concerned, the left butterfly, which isn't blurrry, looks to be infront of the blurry flower, which looks bigger, and thus closer, from the sharper flower below it. No lens creates DOF like that. Also, there looks to be an artifact, like a partially removed/cloned proboscis below the legs of the left butterfly. --C messier (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Poor quality --Tagooty (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had you noticed @Sandipoutsider: that these three butterflies appear to have identical damage to the outer margin of their hindwings. I've not seen this before. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSorry for the delay in responding . Here I am to tell you something.

The production of the raw file of the image in question could serve the best undoubtedly, but I am sadly to inform that I never keep the NEF raw files of the images as my storage capacity is limited. Plentiful pictures occur as I shoot butterflies twice or thrice every week. Hence I don’t have enough space in keeping the raw files. I edit on the jpg converted files.

In the point of uncoiled proboscis and legs down while flying ;- that day 7-8 Common Birdwings were nectaring, flying ,gliding and nectaring again & flying again and so on .There I saw some of them lying & hovering in between gaps of nectaring with their proboscis uncoiled & legs down in some occasion. For reference , I have uploaded two pictures vide file nos. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_Birdwing_in_flight_WLB_DSC_0126.jpg & https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Common_Birdwing_in_flight_WLB_DSC_0125.jpg in Commons .

About flash triggering in spot metering , I humbly say that I never shoot butterflies without flash in all kind of light conditions using my non-TTL cheap price manual flash. But in none of my image’s metadata ever show any record of use of flash. I have checked even the photos shot in poor evening time light where shooting is impossible without flash, but in those too no metadata record of flash. I don’t know why it happens.

About the top left butterfly appearing bigger in size, I can only say with my little knowledge on butterfly Common Birdwing occur with wing span ranging from 140mm – 170/175mm .That day on that spot I saw Common Birdwings with varied sizes.

In the matter of noise distribution on the subjects & background (some flowers, butterflies & sky), I say that I have sharpened the butterflies & flower portions with smart sharpening tool to let them appear sharper & used gaussian blur tool in the sky portion to remove the heavy amount of noise generated after cropping the image . My old camera causes pretty good noise in the background in highlight and shadow parts when I crop images more.Hence , this sharpening & blurring operation may cause uneven noise level in the image when seen in zooming .

The right two butterflies are not the same , this is seen clearly in the gap of abdomen & wings of them . This is all I can say in this regard . Thank you all. --Sandipoutsider (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for this. I'm sorry if I doubted you, but the sort of selective processing you have done raised my suspicions. It doesn't really work. Can I suggest you keep the RAW files of you best images. I didn't process in RAW for a long time, but now I'm glad I kept them since 2015. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pool noodles for sale 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2022 at 19:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created by Kritzolina - uploaded by Kritzolina - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get it. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Me neither, noodle pools have potential but I don't see any pleasing symmetry or chaos here. --Trougnouf (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not sure about this image. It's very interesting, but I'm not sure wether it is good for FP. A simple yes or no doesn't be enough. --XRay 💬 13:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the simplicity and the harmonious colour palette. The structure is a nice combination of regularity with some deviations. --Aristeas (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting photo, it caught my eye as I was scrolling down the page. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd never thought a pile of noodle poles would end up as an FP candidate, but here we go. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Common good quality image, no reason fo FP nomition, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support This is the sort of image that Cart often finds and nominates, finding something featurable in images of otherwise mundane objects. I think she might have done this differently, perhaps discreetly arranging the noodles to be more in line, more of a perfect spectrum, but in any event ... these are probably stacked in a store somewhere, so we shouldn't reasonably expect them to be so perfect, and the imperfection of it for me stands in the image's favor. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You rang, Sir. :-) You are right that I would be intrigued by a stack of pool noodles like these. I would not rearrange anything as I love the 'natural' disorder, but that said: The labels bug the hell out of me and the light is too flat. I would have gone lower/higher to avoid the text and also selected an angle that made the light more interesting. --Cart (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not really an eye-catcher to me, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the idea and definitely think it has potential, the contrasting colours are great, but per Cart, the labels are annoying and the angle could be better Cmao20 (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Like bar codes, these labels evoke an industrial aspect that is quite repelling in my view. Sort of manufactured products we often see in consumer catalogs. The diversity of colors is not that impressive, and the colors themselves are not particularly subtle. I appreciate the idea, but overall find this picture closer to banal than extraordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Agree with Cart re: labels and light. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTai123.123 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no FP Lupe (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:USA Kalifornien Geisterstadt Bodie, Foto von 1987.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2022 at 20:30:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States
Info This photo was shot 1987 with Nikon camera on Kodachrome 200 film. Therefore you can see the real noise of that photo film, which was scanned recently - created by Marc-Lautenbacher - uploaded by Marc-Lautenbacher - nominated by Marc-Lautenbacher -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the motif and the colours but the blurry foreground is too distracting for me to support, it doesn't add anything to the composition for me. Cmao20 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see the potential for a great composition in the non-blurry part, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too grainy for an exterior shot, even at the period, distracting out of focus foreground, and low wow-factor in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IK. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To give this photo a little love: What I really like are the film colours – they are somewhat off, but that gives the photo a somewhat unreal, ‘out of time’ feeling, which is perfect for a photo of a ghost town ;–). I can also understand that you included the unsharp foreground in the photo – I have done this often myself, in the hope for a nice effect; but most times this does not work as expected … Anyway this is a valuable photo, it documents the state of these buildings at that time and it’s very interesting to compare it with the newer photos. --Aristeas (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that this could be a useful Valued Image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Красивое озеро Глубелька на закате дня.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2022 at 15:05:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Belarus (not existing)
Info created & uploaded by Владислав011 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The view point has potential but the quality really is under our standards, too noisy and unsharp (upper corners in particular). The blue and green also seem over-saturated to me -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated, concidering many of the trees are pine and pruce which don't have very strong green color. --Ximonic (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile and Ximonic. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Indeed somewhat oversaturated. However to my surprise it looks better to me at full size (not as oversaturated etc. as in the thumbnail), therefore my (weak) support – the place and the perspective are so beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas --IamMM (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Saturation, technical quality. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:DFB - RhB R 12 Realp - Tiefenbach II.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2022 at 06:53:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for nominating this! While I like this photo a lot I also feel like the post processing could be better. It required some quite extreme measures to make sure the snow isn't just all equally white. Hints/Ideas how to improve it are very much appreciated. --Kabelleger (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--GRDN711 (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great, but there's a big spot near the upper left corner that I presume should be removed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've removed that spot. But be aware that it was snowing lightly, hence the photo will always have some spots. I've also changed the white balance quite a bit and made some other adjustments. I think it's better now. --Kabelleger (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it (like all your photos I have to say). I think it could have been even more dreamy if it wasn't for the mountain in the background breaking the white "evenness". Since you're asking for feedback, I wonder if you couldn't have made the blacks blacker or emphasize the steam with more clarity to make it a bit scarier... But really just an idea out of the blue. And it's already so good maybe it's best not to alter it :) - Benh (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks! I've already put in a lot of contrast where there originally wasn't much and I'm kind of afraid of pushing it too far and making it look unnatural. Also every time I push contrast I'm increasing noise, and the photo is already quite noisy, so for now I think I'll leave this one as it is, but I have some more photos which could benefit from re-processing and I'll try that on some of them. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow--Ermell (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. The absence of footprints in this virgin landscape is appreciable -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly the master of the "trains in beautiful places" genre. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus 05:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 07:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:The Yellow Fellowship.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2022 at 10:59:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info A group of participants dressed in yellow at the Sandurot Festival 2019 in Dumaguete, Philippines. Created and uploaded by Herbert Kikoy – nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO (and according to the jury ;–) one of the best photos submitted for Wiki Loves Folklore 2021. Maybe the composition is not 100% perfect (I would prefer a tiny bit more room at the bottom, and the left crop is a little bit arguable), but it is still very good, the colours are beautiful and I am just overcome with the enthusiasm this photo captures. --Aristeas (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ** A superb photographic rendition of Filipino festivity. Buszmail (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Picturesque! -Filipinayzd (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb! - Maffeth.opiana (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture! --GRDN711 (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I think there should be more categories. People are dancing and wearing yellow clothes, and there are jugs. What are the jugs made of? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A big problem with photos from Wiki Loves Folklore is that descriptions, categories etc. are often very vague (sometimes they are missing completely). I have already tried to improve the description of this file before nominating it, but I was not able to find more reliable information. That’s a pity. It would great if somebody could help! --Aristeas (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Herbertkikoy, could you help address these things? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's gorgeous. I love the colour renditions, the two plans of dancers, the slightly blurry background giving sense of depth, isolation but still festive context, and the facial expression of the dancer in the middle. Huge wow - Benh (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Warm colors, festive atmosphere. Appealing. Nice find -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very engaging image, so much joy! --El Grafo (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colourful and riveting. --Tagooty (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tai123.123 (talk) 06:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Events

File:Smoke and flames in Australia ESA21788548.jpeg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2022 at 19:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Satellite images#Oceania
Info created by European Space Agency - uploaded by OptimusPrimeBot - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable, FP-worthy image. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- vip (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Baidax ^💬 19:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution and an important document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really interesting --Yeriho (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the resolution of the photo. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose big wow, but stacking errors clearly visible (notes added), CA too strong. --Ivar (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From MPOW is image chaotic, taken from bad point, could be better. -- Karelj (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. I have noted the stacking error on the right in the actual image file.--Peulle (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too bad there is a stacking error. Impressive enough nonetheless. --Trougnouf (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Stacking errors are a pity, but AFAIK not uncommon in such satellite images (seems that ESA and Co. are not fully aware of such aesthetic issues ;–). Given the high resolution and the documentary value I still think it’s worth to be featured. --Aristeas (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, CA is evident but I'm not sure what can be done to prevent it, and maybe it can be fixed locally. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alcatraz recreation yard, NW view.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2022 at 07:55:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info The famous recreation yard of the former Alcatraz prison offered the prisoners not only the opportunity for social life and sports activities, but was also the scene of bloody confrontations and escape attempts. In Don Siegel's 1979 movie Escape from Alcatraz with Clint Eastwood, the prison yard played a role several times as original filming location. Since closure of the prison, the birds have regained control of the site.
Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressively shows the emptiness and the feeling of being locked up in this place – the ~~dove~~ gull is the icing on the cake, it embodies the loneliness of the prisoners (but unlike them it can fly away). --Aristeas (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Bird corrected, sorry ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Elvorix^talk 13:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO, too dull light, which results in no wow. --C messier (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Feels imbalanced to me, too right-heavy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded @IamMM, Aristeas, Agnes Monkelbaan, Elvorix, C messier, Llez, and King of Hearts: Thank you for your helpful review, King of Hearts. I have cropped the photo a bit on the left and top, the previous frame I chose to have the seagull exactly centered. I believe this crop is a better compromise because the seagull is now in the optical center and the image is no longer so right-heavy, imho. Best wishes :) (Sorry for the mass pinging.) -- Radomianin (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I still support. ×Elvorix^talk 19:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Composition is good now. The black clipping in the trees is a bit heavy-handed though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low POV and too much foreground. Light. And the bird. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles.--Ermell (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much for your thoughts on the photo. The main subject of the picture is the prison yard and the seagull as a metaphorical symbol, so the low point of view is intentional. The building in the background is the dining hall. Best wishes :) -- Radomianin (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. Sorry. --Milseburg (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as I think it could stand be cropped even further (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel, thank you very much for your helpful review and the suggested image crop. I tried it immediately, but unfortunately I am not satisfied with a square solution. Too much of the yard area gets lost on both sides, so the overall impression disappears. Nevertheless, many thanks for your proposed framing :) -- Radomianin (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Wasn't sure about this at first but Aristeas' reasoning has convinced me, I'm still not convinced the composition is outstanding but still FP to me Cmao20 (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Eye-catching, the bird showing its back is distracting. It would be better facing us, and closer, or simply away. I appreciate the originality of the low POV, but find the building quite depressing. Dull light -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wie Aristeas. Es ist im übrigen nicht ganz unwahrscheinlich, dass es sich um eine Westmöwe handelt (siehe den dortigen Abschnitt „Nahrungserwerb und Nahrung“). Beste Grüße vom Autor des Westmöwenartikels :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vielen Dank für Deine Hintergrundinformationen, Frank. Du hast recht, die Beinfarbe ist ein starkes Indiz für die Gattung der Westmöwen. Herzliche Grüße :) -- Radomianin (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The crowd of tourists somewhat spoils the atmosphere, but on the whole, I think the supporters have the better argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per C messier. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The unreal (hostile atmosphere) of the photo is the deciding factor for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looked at this again and again and - well, here I am --Kritzolina (talk) 19:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States

File:Water reflection of stringy gray and white clouds in a pond on a sand beach of Don Khon at sunrise in Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2022 at 07:54:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info created & uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The UWA lens is really in good hands, but I think the wow factor of your wide angle pics would increase a hundred folds if the light touches the ground a bit. - Benh (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Benh, for your feedback. If I understand what you mean, you suggest to include the sun in the composition? If so, I agree most of my pictures are taken when it is hidden. A few exceptions include this one or that one. I usually tend to prefer the period of the day when the clouds are special, dense or colorful, and this usually happens when the sun is low. More an intuitive choice, based on my own experience, than a fixed decision, however. Perhaps pure contre-jour pictures, with the sun rays in front, would provide the color spot you suggest. Hopefully the texture of the sky would be particular too, but that morning I was there also later, and have other shots taken when the sun was visible, though the light was very intense (and overall the sky less colorful). This sunrise for example "touches the ground", though the clouds here are more interesting in my opinion. Hopefully I'll meet a situation with both in the future? -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. I didn't necessarily mean that the sun should be in the frame, but just that enough rays lit the ground to give it some more vibrant colors and texture. I give it to you that these are totally subjective matters. Since you seem to be carefully planning your shots, maybe you are there before the sun sets, so it's free to try? I totally am on board with you with the cloud patterns. They do render great, so clouds or light... your choice, but it seems you have been choosing right so far ;) - Benh (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks! Your intuition makes sense, for 2 reasons. First, to be at that spot before sunrise, I woke up and left home at night yes, luckily it was full moon (or almost) that morning, so I noticed in the darkness the clouds were special (it's not everyday like that). My goal was to get the waterfalls with these clouds, unfortunately they were not at the right place for a nice picture. Thus I had to find another spot, by walking, and that pond was totally unexpected. Secondly, you're right about the intensity of the colors, that was actually bigger 18 minutes earlier, with wonderful pink and red tints, really impressive. I have a picture at that moment, that I can show, but maybe not upload on Commons because of the freedom of panorama of the architectural building (conical restaurant) displayed in the center of the image. Just to say we agree, now I catch better your idea. (And for the Lion King, I watched the movie in an airplane by chance a few years ago, and frankly enjoyed... I understand and appreciate the metaphor :-) ) Basile Morin (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ah yes sorry, it's the sun rising, so you were here before the light touches the ground. But anyways, as you mentioned, I think we agree here ;) Is there such a thing as FoP in Laos? I personally never have cared but maybe I should have? - Benh (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FoP rules seem very strict on Commons, however this architecture remains moderately complex, and here is the sky a bit earlier when the "light touches the ground" (as you certainly know it lasts just a small dozen of minutes) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice fire clouds. As for FoP it's more about the law in Laos itself, but I would be really surprised if this is a concern to them. If you don't know, I could try to ask my relatives there, but I doubt they know either... - Benh (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree and move to your TP to prolong that discussion because it now concerns another subject -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Dark and uninspiring, poor use of wide angle in composition --Yeriho (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, Tomer T, for the nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually prefer this slightly muted color palette to some of the flashier sunrise/sunset images. For me a Wow comes in different forms and this image has one of them. --Kritzolina (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The muted colours and brightness have the advantage that the luminous cloud stripes and their reflections appear all the more impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Kritzolina. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marvellous ×Elvorix^talk 13:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The near left corner is a little soft, but the streaming clouds and their reflections are wonderful! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I keep thinking it would be nicer with the clouds and reflection symmetrical. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking composition and lighting --Tagooty (talk) 06:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Amazing image that really stands out Cmao20 (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BMW tire.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2022 at 06:53:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you've gotten tired of what you've been seeing round here lately ... -- Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We can all get tyred. But delighted that you are, in the round, the spokesman. I tread carefully, but I cannot rubber stamp this nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I was of course not taking this nomination seriously and I doubt Daniel Case was either. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a few nominations that are serious yet had fun with the subject. Perhaps joke nominations should wait till 1st April, especially on an international project where puns might not be understood. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The response seems to be somewhat restrained ;–), but I like it. The restrained but harmonious colors make the image special for me. At the first glance I thought the crop was too tight, but when I view it in full size without anything around it the crop looks fine to me. --Aristeas (talk) 10:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC) I’m not everybody’s fool. --Aristeas (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Looks like the driver has a curb problem.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everyday object photographed in an ordinary way. Guys, we're supposed to be selecting the finest images on Commons, not just liking a Flickr photo of a mate. Category:BMW alloy wheels with tires has over 100 and that's just one type of wheel in one brand. -- Colin (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Guys, we're supposed to be selecting the finest images on Commons, not just liking a Flickr photo of a mate – I very strongly second that. --Kreuz schnabel 22:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I really can’t see anything special, extraordinary, cream-of-the-crop, cutting-edge in this pic. It’s not even perfectly sharp, there’s some motion blur in it. The dull light doesn’t help, neither does the dark upper part making the tyre melt into the background. --Kreuz schnabel 22:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I actually think this is a fine idea for an FP but it'd need to be sharper, with more compelling light, and a less scuffed and damaged wheel Cmao20 (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Always nice to see something different for a change, but per others above. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others above. --Hulged (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Daniel Case (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newport Jersey City November 2021 009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2022 at 04:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get it with this big white structure, sorry --A.Savin 17:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting and well composed aerial photo with the train just turning the corner and a nice contrast between the white structure and the rest of the busy scene, I like it Cmao20 (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't love the light, but I'm into the architectural motif. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting. Tomer T (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per others. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too imposing and eye-catching by contrast, the white structure ruins the composition in my view. The train gets almost insignificant within the framing. Valuable document but no wow for me -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning support. I don't like the composition, but the architectural stuff looks cool. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SHB2000: please cast a single vote per nomination, because the points are automatically tallied by the FPC bot. I've fixed your {{S}}, according to the meaning of your comment. Feel free to strike your {{Neutral}} if you prefer to support. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for fixing it. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:View over Reinevågen towards north, Moskenes, Nordland, Norway, 2017 April.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2022 at 22:00:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Norway
Info Another amazing Norwegian landscape by Ximonic, I really like the colours and the overall stormy atmosphere. created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Beautiful view with dramatic sky. But why is it barely 7 Mpix from a 18Mpix camera? --C messier (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because to combat noise, which the older camera always produced quite a lot in these conditions, and people seemed not to like noise at all. I just always wanted to drive the attention to the scene rather than the pixels, even in full size, and that's my personal preference.--Ximonic (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a violation of the rule not to downsample a photo so that it looks sharper (OK, less noisy)? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me personally, it doesn't matter. But if it's a strict rule, maybe then it cannot be FP, and I would be OK with it. It wouldn't change my opinion on how I like to process my own pictures though. Especially those, which were taken by an inferior camera, I had to approach very differently and do sacrifices. I only want to feel comfortable with them. I would like to mention though, in those rather retro times, this was normal in the photo community of Commons. For example, I was a huge fan of the work by Luca Galuzzi at the time when I got the drive to photograph for Wikipedia, and up until very recent days I've been using that same old gear as back then. I couldn't magically raise my standards with yesterdays equipment though so that's where I come from. Concider, that I have basically been stuck in the year 2009 until 2021. --Ximonic (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, as far as I know there is no official rule that you can't downsample a photo. It's just this page tends to dislike it on principle. Of course you are free to oppose on that basis. Personally I think the picture we do have is still worthy of FP. Cmao20 (talk) 19:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't check Commons:Image guidelines. In the "Quality and featured photographic images" section, the second guideline is: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." Later in the paragraph, FPs are referenced specifically: "for Featured Pictures, the original non-downsampled version is preferred" (this refers to exceptions in which downsampling is otherwise acceptable, but those are "images of living persons" and not landscapes, in any case). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that page before, it is useful but also they are only 'guidelines' and I see photos that don't fit them perfectly pass FPC quite a lot. Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks very flat. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light is a bit flat, but the bizarre shapes of the mountains and the exciting colour contrast – cold colours in water and on the mountains, warm earthy shades in the flatland, vivid red on the houses – more than make up for it. --Aristeas (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the atmosphere and the view, but irrespective of the discussion about downsampling, the composition doesn't fully work for me. But I do think it should be sharper, especially as a downsampled photo of this size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Aristeas, manages to be beautiful in its dreariness. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. --Tagooty (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support quite a colourful one. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Settlements#Norway

File:View of Ribeira from Jardim do Morro (9).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2022 at 18:51:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Portugal
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but light is not really beautiful --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks nice, but not extraordinary enough for FP.--Peulle (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Wassermühle -- 2022 -- 9788 (bw).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2022 at 06:31:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 06:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 06:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's all gray. I feel shrunk in that tight frame. Weird elongated format. The background does not highlight the subject of the same color. Black and white is sad. Not an interesting object in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. -- Karelj (talk) 12:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it is all grey, but I find the rich gradation of greys in the rhythmic progression of the blades from bright (left) to dark (right) really appealing; the contrast between the simple sharp edges of the blades and the complex patterns of their surfaces is exciting. The background is blurred and shows a different structure so that the water wheel stands out sufficiently. --Aristeas (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas, interesting abstract Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this even more than the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced either. I enjoy patterns, so probably focusing on the left size (and shown more further to the left) could have worked better. IMHO the blades on the right brake the rythm Poco a poco (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. --Fischer.H (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama vom Heimbergturm 2021.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2022 at 16:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Rhineland-Palatinate
Info Panoramic view (360°) from the look-out-tower on Heimberg in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany All by me -- Milseburg (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Clearly some considerable effort went into this photo and it's a useful document but honestly wide panoramas like this often don't appeal to me, I don't get a clear compositional idea from this one. Cmao20 (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thin like a ruler, the format prevents me from appreciating, because my eyes cannot circulate through the content apart from horizontally. Mediocre light, a bit dark -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great effort in the processing work but some parts of the picture are not that sharp and landscape doesn't seem special for me. Sorry. --Nikhil B (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --Fischer.H (talk) 10:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Engelwortel (Angelica archangelica). Locatie, Broeresleat. Súdwest-Fryslân. 12-08-2020. (actm.) 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2022 at 16:32:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants# Family : Apiaceae
Info Angelica archangelica on the banks of the Broeresleat in good light in the morning hours.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I don't understand the lighting chosen, nor the background; and surely you would have been better using portrait orientation?

Answer: the plant stood on the bank of the ditch. I took the plant at the same height (i.e. lying in front of the plant) with the beautiful morning light of the wide area where this solitary plant stood as a background.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but the orientation of the light is not successful. Observers have shadows right in front. Very ordinary image in these conditions, in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --El Grafo (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pant-du farmland, N Wales, UK, 2021. (51264512559).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2022 at 10:45:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Phlips photos - uploaded by Thingofme - nominated by Palosirkka -- Palosirkka (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palosirkka (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice sensibility but very noisy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Settings were strange and poor result. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, very noisy. In 2021 we expect better quality. But very nice motif, please let it repeat. -- -donald- (talk) 05:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Palosirkka (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erithacus rubecula profile.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2022 at 00:40:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Muscicapidae (Old World Flycatchers)
Info created by C-M - uploaded by C-M - nominated by C-M -- C-M (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obviously not the first robin picture, but none of the excellent ones is as fluffy and has the tail sticking up in this characteristic pose. -- C-M (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not quite up to the many existing FPs. Tail-up is not particularly characteristic. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Muscicapidae (Old World Flycatchers)

File:Salacca wallichiana fruit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2022 at 06:40:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buah salak (Malay), not my favorite fruit to eat but an interesting shape and well-captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great shot with excellent documentary value as a bonus --Kritzolina (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina. Cmao20 (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Wilfredor (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)

File:Ankara asv2021-10 img72 Republic Museum.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2022 at 13:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Other ceilings
Info Ceiling of the entrance hall of the Republic Museum (which was the Turkish parliament building from 1924–1960), Ankara --- all by me --A.Savin 13:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and a nice change from church ceilings, however lovely those often are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, sharp and detailed. Cmao20 (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Other ceilings

File:Banco de peces trompeta (Macroramphosus scolopax), islas Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 40.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2022 at 17:54:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Order_:_Syngnathiformes_(Pipefishes_and_Seahorses)
Info Comprehensive view of a school of trumpetfishes (Macroramphosus scolopax), between the islands of Pico and Faial, Azores, Portugal. This fish is found worldwide in tropical to subtropical water in the Atlantic, Indian, and west Pacific Oceans, at depths of 25 to 600 m (82 to 1,969 ft). I'm aware of the overexposure in the top of the image but I appreciate the whole view of the school and the quality is overall pretty good. Note: there is already one FP of this species. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it needs a slight rotation. This is far more interesting than exisitng FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp: there is no way that you can come to any conclusion about the tilt looking at this file. Looking at the image as it is, it is indeed hard for me to decide in which direction the tilt would be required. If I look at the fishes in the middle, they are horizontal, looking overall you might believe that it needs a a ccw tilt but after I checked the original file (there is some more crop on top) I'd rather believe that it would need a tilt in cw direction. So it looks like the school was moving up when I took the image. Is that really important in a shot like this? I'd like to leave it as it is. Poco a poco (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking at the light rays which I though would look even nicer symmetrical. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding! --Ivar (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wowow! - Benh (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Charles that this is far more interesting than the other FP, which I did not vote for. Cmao20 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Interesting subject but terrible light. Blown highlights are gray -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Album cover for sure. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty cool pic. --SHB2000 (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great in many ways. --Aristeas (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you upload a version where you haven't set the highlights/whites to 0. The blown highlights on the fish are not white and the top is oddly desaturated. I think we should accept over-bright elements to be blown white and not paper grey. Also, you've exported this as ProPhotoRGB colourspace, which will only add to the problems. I see File:Banco de peces trompeta (Macroramphosus scolopax), islas Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 38.jpg is also ProPhotoRGB. Looks like a lot of your photos are affected. You could try installing "EXIF Viewer Pro" to Chrome. Then you can right-click on the full-size image in the browser to choose "Show EXIF data". Change the browser extension options to show Color Space. If it doesn't show 1 for this then it isn't sRGB. It isn't as extensive as Jeffrey Friedl's page. Alternatively, if you have your exported JPGs in folders on your PC, you could try using Exiftool in a script to detect which are ProPhotoRGB. -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If you care, I actually agree with Colin (edit: and Basile!) on the grey highlight after a second look (and after the wowowow moment passed). Whites should be white in my view. - Benh (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--GRDN711 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Argenberg (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just another level here on FPC. Waiting for the Colin request, and yes I will change my vote --Wilfredor (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin/Wilfredor. Also, there are some weird artifacts/pixelation at the top, as if it were upsampled. Of course, this is worthy of FP if the technical issues are fixed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Basile Morin, Colin, and King of Hearts: I've uploaded a new version (sorry for the delay! very bussy currently in real life). I've used the sRGB color space (and also fixed all other FPs where the same problem applies) and applied less highlight reduction with the hope that it looks more "natural" now. Can you please give me some feedback before I ping everybody? Poco a poco (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is an improvement. I'm still puzzled by the surface patches of grey. It is a really really pure grey, like fully desaturated. Is there a desaturating gradiant filter here? -- Colin (talk) 18:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are no filters here, Poco a poco (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks unnaturally grey, and there is still pixelation at the top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do find the pixellation that King of Hearts mentions to be odd, it looks similar to what one might expect if the photo had been upsampled (edges jagged rather than smooth), but of course this is not true and the rest of the picture shows no signs of upsampling, and obviously Poco a poco would not do that in the first place. But I do wonder what could have caused it. My support stands in spite of the technical quibbles because for me this is the kind of photo not worth pixel-peeping. Cmao20 (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied an additional slight correction in the same direction. The spots at the top due to the sun reflection are white now, not grey. I cannot see though any jagged edges. What I see is patters that repeat several times, that's not due to edition but natural. All I did in Photoshop here was getting rid of some spots and a rope from for the scuba divers. No, no downsampling was applied here, indeed I'm offering almost 21 MPx of resolution (mainly to center the crop and make it square). I'd leave it as it is as long as I cannot sea any real problems that needs to be fixed. Poco a poco (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Order_:_Syngnathiformes_(Pipefishes_and_Seahorses)

File:Walter Francis White by Clara Sipprell.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2022 at 02:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Clara Sipprell - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of obvious historical importance and good at original size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Playa de la Cola del Caballo in La Unión, Murcia, Spain, 2022 January - 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2022 at 09:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Spain
Info created & uploaded by User:Ximonic - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking image, great winter mood, and I doubt anyone can complain about the size of this file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are different blues of the sea on the left and on the right side, clearly divided in the middle. Two different frames? --Llez (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks weird, but I assure you it is there for real. I checked the pictures and the color divide happens in the middle of original pictures. It is caused either by the light casting differently between the clouds or by the reflections of clouds, even if it might look fake. (Similarly to the water on the very right side of the bay.)--Ximonic (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the information --Llez (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain Thank you for nomination! This view was a pleasant surprise at the end of a random path. --Ximonic (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're welcome! Thanks for taking and uploading the photo! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Hulged (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain ~~{{Panorama}} or {{Retouched picture}} missing in the description page.~~ It is clearly a photomontage, because the Canon EOS 5D Mark IV I use everyday is limited to 6720 pixels large, while here we have 9,250 pixels, suggesting a combination of multiple frames, as Llez perhaps also suggested above. When shooting large scenery, the light is seldom the same in the different directions of the camera, and these changes sometimes cause color alterations. Blue at the left, gray in the center, then blue again at the right, the sea looks weird but can be real, as Ximonic confirms, and the cliffs at the right seem to cause the same modification as the clouds. However, the overall aspect of the image looks strange, like very colorful, and no contrast. Is it a multi-exposure HDR capture? Again there are no indication on the file page. Such a colorful foreground mixed with intense light in front is not compatible with traditional photography, thus something certainly has been pushed a bit far in the post-treatment, at least the shadows. More information about what exactly produced this picture welcome -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for review. The image is panned from several 16 mm frames shot handheld on a little dangerous terrain. Each direction was shot in 3 exposures, due to noticing a lot of overblow and underexposure happening in camera preview. The raws, each having the same manually set white balance in camera, were automatically stitched together in Adobe Camera Raw in "HDR Panorama" mode and brought to edit table in the Adobe landscape color mode. The sky was separately selected to bring down the brightest parts a bit to avoid too much highlight clipping warning. Conversely, the foreground exposure was lifted somewhat to reveal the geography and the variable textures of the landscape. Metadata is left with information from only one of the original files, and is therefore not trustworthy. But as there is always the software in between, with all it's mystical clever calculations which I couldn't affect, can you ever be truly certain what it has done? I could upload the individual frames of the scene to Commons as a proof of what is happening in the seawater. But honestly, those files wouldn't bring much anything else to the table, aesthetically or as alternatives. Each picture having worse exposure and more awkward composition, they wouldn't be very useful, other than only trying to proof this image's seawater. I don't know if they're worth uploading solely for that reason, but cause more unnecessary work. --Ximonic (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion of the {{Panorama}} template though. I don't know about the purpose of retouched. I have never uploaded raw images to Commons, so essentially there has never been an image from me that is not retouched either in camera software or some PC photograph software. It seems very puristic. --Ximonic (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanations. I believe the natural transitions of color of the sea. Although this is really bad luck in that case with different frames, I've ever seen such things in my own RAWs. No worry. But I judge the image from what is given in the file page. I've added two categories related to the technical aspect, but I think a simple link to High-dynamic-range imaging in the description section or somewhere, would help the observers to understand what they have under the eyes (like here). Thanks for having added {{Panorama}} (in that case {{Retouched picture}} would be redundant). The final stitched composition is very special in the management of the light, some call this "overprocessed", in part because it is shot in bracketing mode. If you provide the trick, this is educative, in my opinion. -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, your example image seems technically similar. I think it would be useful to have a template for {{HDR}}. I've so far abstained from typing possible HDR knowledge on the description itself, as I've tended to reserve that box for information about the subject. I merely try to use the HDR mode as a helpful extention to salvage black/white clipping. It seems to help with reducing noise too. But I've found the Canon 5D Mark IV being quite excellent, and the need for bracketing mode has become more rare. Now that the sensor is so good - the difference in result between HDR and traditional often seeming trivial - I may not always even remember if I had used the bracketing mode for some of my past published pictures. I think Adobe Camera Raw has become better at natural looking tone mapping recently. --Ximonic (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ximonic: do you know you can separate the description and the technique with an extra line inserted in the {{Information}} template, like |other fields 1= {{Information field |name=Photographic technique |value= [[:en:Tone mapping|Tone-mapped HDR]] imaging.}}? See an example here.

The aspect of this picture nominated is very particular, different from my landscapes linked above (using HDR too, but different post-treatments), and from anything I usually see, that's why I abstain from voting. Jeffrey's Image Metadata Viewer indicates the shadows are enhanced 96%, and honestly I find the rocks a bit too luminous, like "unreal". You use the word "fake" above, it's not fake to me, but it's not natural either (not enough). The Canon 5D mark IV is good, however, no camera today is as sensible as the human eye, and that's a problem for every photographer in such situations. Here you made your own "cooking" and I respect your doses. HDR is usually necessary to reduce noise, but also to reveal an accurate range of realistic colors (the more you enhance the dark shades, the harsher the tints are). I know it's not possible to get this range without technical manipulation. In short, we have the choice between giving what the camera got, and that's not the eye-reality, or trying to produce what the eyes got at the instant, and that becomes complex with the software. I think this scenery has a potential, your attempt to translate your sight is probably honest with the sun in front, nevertheless, the result is so special, I'm not sure we would have shared the same experience. Subjective artistic tastes -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support JukoFF (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Spain#Region of Murcia

File:Frontenac Hotel, Quebec ville, downtown 007.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2022 at 16:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but f/2.8 handheld just isn't FP quality, with many parts out of focus. Also, I wish the composition was centered around the rug. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right, I should have raised the ISO and added more depth of field, however, raising the ISO would degrade the gold color. The ideal would have been a tripod, but it was not allowed --Wilfredor (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that this was the best you could do. But just as some subjects are never meant to become FP due to being boring, other subjects are never meant to become FP because taking a high-quality photo of them is not allowed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Pity. I have to agree with KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wilfredor, one technique I find useful for these situations is focus stacking. With a couple of images (e.g. one focused at 2m and another one at 5m, [1]) you should be able to get the entire hall in focus. I see you use Lightroom, so you can perhaps resort to Photoshop to stack the images. Photoshop sucks at large focus stacks but deals very well with small ones, even if there's a bit of movement between shots from hand holding the camera. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a very beautiful interior, but I don't think the quality makes it through as FP. I'm quite sure this place would require a tripod, and understand that such device may have been out of question. The settings being used seem like a reasonable compromise, so we can enjoy atleast some sort of pictures of this place. I don't know if I would have done anything differently in these difficult circumstances, other than maybe played with higher ISO and aperture... --Ximonic (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per others. With so much done right here colorwise, it's a true shame this could not be taken on a tripod and thus get the DoF it deserves. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wit oorzwammetje s.l. (Crepidotus variabilis s.l.) 12-01-2022. (d.j.b).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2022 at 15:51:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Inocybaceae
Info Crepidotus variabilis s.l. on a dead twig. Focus stack of 42 photos.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Inocybaceae

File:Dead Vlei, Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 074.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2022 at 07:05:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Namibia
Info View of Deadvlei, Namib-Naukluft Park, Namibia. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it, but could it be sharper at full size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not your best, for me. Personally I think the sharpness at full size is fine for a 41mpx photo, but I miss an outstanding composition or light. Cmao20 (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it due to the shapes and colors, so I do indeed find the composition very interesting and the place is of course unique. Poco a poco (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice motif for sure but to me it can't help but feel like one segment in a larger and more interesting panorama. Cmao20 (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good number of FPs already of the dunes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is one of the most iconic places in the world, so it really needs to stand out from other photos of the place to become FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree that it's not as strong as some of Diego's other pictures of this place. But ... I like the painterly qualities of this one, with such sharp dividing lines between the contrasting colors and the block-like dark dead trees, and it seems to me that some of the unsharpness in the distance may well be due to hot air rising off the sand. Daniel Case (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It might not be perfect but it works for me. The forms and the colors are pleasant. 16:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinkum (talk • contribs)
Oppose imho it doesn't stand out in the FP category Natural#Namibia. --Ivar (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sharpness is insufficient. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:SN8 Nose Cone — Rise of the Jawa (50710188538).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2022 at 17:57:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Space_exploration#Space_launch_vehicles
Info created by Steve Jurvetson - uploaded by BugWarp - nominated by CactiStaccingCrane -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, you don't see a stainless-steel rocket wreckage everyday... -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice subject and composition. The photographer's shadow is slightly distracting, but fortunately it is soft and unobtrusive. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not only is the photographer's shadow sufficiently distracting (mine has gotten in a couple of my shots, including one that was on the enwiki Main Page last week), and while it's sort of neat as a way of "signing" one's work I don't go out of my way to make it happen and I would not nominate an image with it for FP unless it were really hard to see or in some way the subject of the image.
Beyond that, while this may be an unusual subject there is nothing about the image compositionally that makes me go "wow". Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Daniel.--Ermell (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A crashed spacecraft, that's a very rare shot, and here it is also in good quality. Never mind that the flight lasted 6 minutes and 42 seconds, and was deemed a success overall, despite the fall) You have to remember that you can take all these shots of nature again and again - the main thing is to wait for the right time of year, but you won't be able to take pictures like this again. JukoFF (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow recognizable. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual subject and agree with King of Hearts. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per JukoFF --IamMM (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 23:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scarlet Robin- Mortimer Bay.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2022 at 17:14:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Petroicidae_(Australasian_Robins)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful bird and high-quality photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aliwal2012 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Petroicidae_(Australasian_Robins)

File:Tolbachik.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2022 at 20:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Far Eastern Federal District
Info created by Anton Korablev - uploaded by Anton Korablev - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we could crop that distracting unsharp area from the bottom and accentuate the horizontals more, I'd support. Daniel Case (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is the distracting that shows the rarity of volcanoes on the Kamchatka plane:) JukoFF (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as is. I might well support if the edits Daniel suggested are made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that :( JukoFF (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The mountains are amazing; however, I'm okay with there being a bit of a blurry area in the foreground but this is just too much Cmao20 (talk) 07:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JukoFF, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and Cmao20: I have created a simple cropped version: File:Tolbachik (cropped).jpg. What do you think? Is it better? Should we crop more or less? (IMHO it’s difficult to determinate the best bottom crop in this case; we must include at least a part of the unsharp foreground.) Best, --Aristeas (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a whole lot better, but I'm not sure whether I'd vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would vote for this version. Cmao20 (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Daniel Case (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and Cmao20: Thank you very much for your comments! OK, so it seems reasonable to provide this one as alternative version … --Aristeas (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aristeas: , thank you so much for your responsiveness! JukoFF (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Support The cropped version accentuates the horizontals better and emphasizes the impressive features of the landscape. --Aristeas (talk) 18:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Veikk0.ma (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Russia#Far Eastern Federal District

The chosen alternative is: File:Tolbachik (cropped).jpg

File:Edward Mitchell Bannister by Gustine L. Hurd.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2022 at 01:18:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Gustine L. Hurd - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture. Thanks for the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I also spent a ridiculous time researching the photographer. I now know his philosophy on photographs of older individuals and have read his will, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court case regarding it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What was his philosophy of photographs like? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically talking about photographing older people, he said you should get characteristic attitudes - which meant to use longer shots that showed more of the body; try to get them into comfortable positions - bringing their own chair to the photography studio or using their home was recommended over standard studio sets; think about matching their clothing to backgrounds if you are in the studio - don't photograph a farmer in a mansion background and so on; consider a longer exposure so that you get characteristic facial expressions instead of frozen ones; and don't try to retouch away all the wrinkles just to suit their vanity. Shit, I remembered a lot of that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, and these all sound like good ideas. Thanks again. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd honestly love to do an article on him, but I'm not sure there's quite enough. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Peulle (talk) 07:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aliwal2012 (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Plain tiger (Danaus chrysippus chrysippus) on dwarf poinciana (Caesalpinia pulcherrima f. rosea).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2022 at 10:32:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fabaceae
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, reminds me much of the carefully arranged butterfly pictures by Maria Sibylla Merian and other early scientific illustrators. --Aristeas (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas--Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yeah, some of your nominations have been sharper, but this is really beautiful, which is more important, and IMO certainly sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do really like the composition and overall colours. It does look a bit like a "rescued overexposed photo" though. Maybe just let those whites shine? The background is quite posterised. Perhaps pushed a little too far in post? -- Colin (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I raised shadows and reduced highlights and reduced whites in RAW. I did the whites to eliminate some blown highlights on the butterfly. The image as a whole was not overexposed. Delighted to let anyone do a better job! Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elegant composition with the flower. Homogeneous plain background -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose white areas on the right wing have been overxposed and have burned out. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 09:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Aristeas and Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support stunning picture --Aliwal2012 (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Fabaceae

File:Vogelburg Weilrod 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2022 at 05:56:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Other
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, distracting shadows at the bottom, busy composition. A valuable QI but not an extraordinary photograph in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the composition and I think the flowers on the left act as a counterpoint that brings everything into context and makes it compelling. But it doesn't seem as sharp as your usual Cmao20 (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perfectly good shot for documentation, and I see elements of a composition for sure but they don't add up to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:1794 Boulton and Anville Wall Map of Africa (most important 18th cntry map of Africa) - Geographicus - Africa2-boulton-1794.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2022 at 18:56:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps_of_Africa
Info uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Veikk0.ma -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably should be digitally restored for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support works for me Ezarateesteban 21:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small for a map. Sorry!--Claus 05:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK for me; we can read all of the names, that’s my personal minimum criterion. --Aristeas (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps_of_Africa

File:Li Phi falls at sunrise with colorful clouds in Don Khon Laos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2022 at 22:34:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Laos
Info As so often with Basile's photos the subtle and painterly light makes this a really special landscape for me. created by Basile Morin - uploaded by Basile Morin - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support one more of that location.--Ermell (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks a lot, Cmao20, for this nomination. This is sunrise. We're lucky the site is currently open 24 hours / 24 because of the absence of tourists due to covid-19. Ordinarily, it is not possible to get there so early. This view point is excellent for large panoramas, but unusual because it is necessary to climb a little bit -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortions towards the corners seem too extreme to me. --Milseburg (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 08:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Winter auf dem Kreuzberg III.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2022 at 14:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info Winter on the Kreuzberg in the Rhön Mountains. All by me. --Milseburg (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing foreground of mostly empty snow which takes up half the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, per King of Hearts. Focus goes to dull foreground, while the background is much more interesting --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per King. We've seen better winter landscapes of Germany here. Daniel Case (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A good picture and nice to look at. But lacks some kind of an eye-grabber on the foreground to complete the composition. When I look at it, I find myself hoping there was something, maybe a tree on the foreground, somewhere at 2/3 center-right, which would balance the whole composition imo.--Ximonic (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so sorry but I agree with the above, super quality as usual but not outstanding composition. Cmao20 (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krakow-kosciol ewangelicki.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2022 at 01:17:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing amazing to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Milseburg (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Lupe (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing shadow at the top, disturbing bottle, disturbing fence. Sorry. --XRay 💬 09:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic but not outstanding enough for FP in my view, the author has a lot of better photos Cmao20 (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Somewhat random composition that doesn't make its subject any more interesting, plus darkness at top. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Andrei (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bronze-winged jacana (Metopidius indicus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2022 at 22:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Metopidius
Info Known as the Jesus bird as it appears to walk on water. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spider toes :-) How can you fly with such a cumbersome pair of legs? Please confess this is your new Photoshop montage following the shrunken headed Bovidae, prankster :-)

But seriously the image seems tilted. The water does not seem horizontal, and a little rotation might improve this impression. The level of detail is not exceptional, but most of the body becomes sharp when downscaled at 3000 px large, which is still an acceptable resolution for a subject taken that far (focal length 560 mm according to the exif). Misplaced, the leaves behind the beak are slightly distracting. However, the wow-factor overcomes these flaws in my opinion, as the light is fine, and the morphology of this bird fascinating enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Basile, was tilted 3 deg. I was in a boat. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow, interesting creature Cmao20 (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Interesting bird indeed, but I find the background distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support That bird has interesting feet. I like the picture --Lupe (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting colours and posture. --Tagooty (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Metopidius

File:Grus canadensis in flight-2618.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2022 at 10:39:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Gruidae (Cranes)
Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a face! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition - head and left wing of bird poorly distinguished, merging together . -- Karelj (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good capture of a bird in flight -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 20:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Gruidae (Cranes)

File:Julian Alps from Vrsic Pass (3).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2022 at 18:49:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Slovenia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice balanced shot. With a small part of the path at the bottom center.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Michielverbeek (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A little hesitant Oppose As much I like to look at these beautiful mountains which are very nicely captured, I think the composition is slightly too tight for this landscape, especially at the bottom. --Ximonic (talk) 14:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary mountain shot, not outstanding, bottom crop isn't succeded --Milseburg (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I said when Famberhorst suggested nominating this one. Cmao20 (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good but not extraordinary to me. Solid QI/VI to me, with a composition that is good but not outstanding. All the other mountain shots have raised the bar, in my opinion, but most of you disagree. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Northwestern Lakeshore.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2022 at 14:24:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info created by Sea Cow - uploaded by Sea Cow - nominated by Sea Cow -- Sea Cow (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sea Cow (talk) 14:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what you might have seen here. But the light is kind of dull and the crop at bottom right awkward ... maybe you had no choice but to accept it, nonetheless it still doesn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, maybe a useful VI, but I agree with Daniel and also don't find it an exceptional composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it could be FP if the light were more interesting but for me this is not quite there Cmao20 (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition does not work for me.Dinkum (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cirsium palustre inflorescence - Niitvälja.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2022 at 13:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Carduoideae
Info all by- Ivar (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and educative. --Aristeas (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Cmao20 (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily_:_Carduoideae

File:ONE, Frankfurt, Partial Facade View during construction 20200516 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2022 at 00:08:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info I am aware this is a risky nomination but I thought this was a compelling abstract, I think the light is perfect and the contrast between blue and red makes it a really interesting composition. created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, a very nice contrast indeed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support refreshing take on the "frame full of windows" theme. --El Grafo (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo. --Aristeas (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks for the nomination, Cmao20! --DXR (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not really wowed by this particular perspective, sorry. --Peulle (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Nice idea but not a great composition to me: it's got contrast but no linear arabesque to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. -- Karelj (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Poco a poco (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Tagooty (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I don't really understand any of the opposing arguments but it makes it difficult to see how it can pass when you get a flood of opposes just stating 'per above'. Cmao20 (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Our Lady of the Assumption church in Caminha 10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2022 at 07:48:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Portugal
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I don't think cropping in and up a little bit would hurt. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case; cropped as you have suggested. Tournasol7 (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could do with a bit more contrast, otherwise very good Cmao20 (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric. --Aristeas (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Cmao20 and Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The five extant species of the gastropod genus Janthina, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2022 at 06:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Janthina exigua
Janthina globosa
Janthina janthina
Janthina pallida
Janthina umbilicata

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family_:_Epitoniidae
Info The gastropod genus Janthina contains 5 extant species. The genus is unique because all of its representatives have violet shells. They are therefore also called "Violet Snails" or "Purple Storm Snails". They are also unique in that they do not crawl over the ground, but instead float in the open sea on self-made rafts. The shells of the depicted specimens vary between 0,9 cm (Janthina exigua, Janthina umbilicata), and 2,3 cm (Janthina janthina); created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The last one is the least clear one to be an FP, but it's also one of the smallest, and I consider the set FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent set with fine encyclopedic value. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --IamMM (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent display. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Shells#Family_:_Epitoniidae

File:Manège militaire Voltigeurs de Québec.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2022 at 15:19:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the black edges? Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose disturbing black edges, per Charles. Tomer T (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question You guys aren't talking about the curtains on the left and right, are you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Viewed in closeup, they are clearly curtains. But I agree there's no need for them in the image, and if they are cropped out I will support. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support You know what? I like it like this. Feels like I'm peeking through those curtains into that giant empty hall. Have you ever been alone in a place like this, made to hold many people? It's a very special feeling and this image conveys it quite well. It's calling me, but I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be in there ... --El Grafo (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. The empty floor is too dominant. The black curtains, thin as matches, have no texture, and are thus distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I don't relate to complaints about the framing provided by the open curtains (all the world's a stage!) or the prominence of the floor. As a composition, this is as good to me as other long, straight views, and if the sharpness were better, my vote would be a slam-dunk, but really, look at the long lines at full page. Not strong to you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The overall composition is not bad, but there are lots of colour fritening on the floor in the shining part. As well the left and right brick walls are blurred. -- User:Marc-Lautenbacher (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question What is "fritening"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fringing, I assume. There are indeed some odd blotches across the floor, particularly visible around the central illuminated path. They seem to be the result of chrominance noise rather than optical colour fringing, though? This sort of noise is rare in modern sensors at low ISO unless the shadows are really pushed, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Wilfredor, can you recall any editing step that might explain this? In any case, you should be able to use Lightroom's colour noise reduction to get rid of it. -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I will take note and I will make another edited version improved. For the moment only can thanks every comment. Very sorry for my delay --Wilfredor (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:18 02 2022 Sobrevoo e reunião de trabalho sobre medidas emergenciais do Governo Federal para a cidade de Petrópolis (51888295177).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2022 at 22:01:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Others
Info This landslide among others and floods occured just a few days ago in Petrópolis (Brazil) after over 200 mm rain fell within just 3 hours. Overall at least 94 people died. Created by Palácio do Planalto from Brasilia, Brasil - uploaded by Perfektsionist - nominated by Lupe -- Lupe (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lupe (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Of course the event was tragic. Good quality and also a likely Valued Image, but not an exceptional composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, tragic event and VI, but not a FP, nothing is really outstanding --Milseburg (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tragic event and valued image, but not a featured picture. Perfektsionist (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain from !voting at this point because the image is protected; I'm guessing it's on the Main Page of the German Wikipedia. Therefore no edits can be made to it in response to comments here. It should be withdrawn and renominated when the protection expires. Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nevelzwam (Clitocybe nebularis) 24-11-2020. (actm.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2022 at 07:23:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Tricholomataceae
Info (Clitocybe nebularis) clouded agaric Focus stack of 25 photos.}}
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support On closer inspection, the flies make it interesting. You can also buy the image here . I found almost all my FPs there. Each of you should have a look there. Unfortunately, this happens again and again.--Ermell (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Thanks for your tip. This is new to me. I'll try to get the picture out of there. My knowledge of the English language is zero. So it will probably be difficult.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that everyone that finds their images illegally used by Shutterstock does two things: i) send them a DMCA take down notice (instructions on how to do so here; ii) expose the situation to specialised media (e.g. [2],[3],[4]). Past experience suggests that it is only when these guys get involved (e.g. [5]) that Shutterstock stops dragging their feet and does something about this growing issue -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for the addresses.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Let me know if I can help with the language barrier, happy to do so -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I appreciate that a lot.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a trace of green hot pixels on the photo (note added). --Ivar (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking macro --Tagooty (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support per the slight halo and background noise in some areas. Daniel Case (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Tricholomataceae

File:Red-tailed hawk on power pole-2033.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2022 at 08:18:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Buteo
Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Might work with a relevant sign, but not here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you consider a relevant sign? --Kritzolina (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - "No Hawkers" or something like an image of a hawk on a warning sign you get when you Google hawk and sign. Otherwise I much prefer natural setting although it is so much easier to take this sort of shot. The stuff around the bird is very distracting and hides a lot of the bird. The bird is also looking away from the viewer. The PoV is quite low too. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for explaining, I think I understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree with you. --Kritzolina (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Interesting example of the interaction between man and nature! --Aliwal2012 (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Profile is OK with me and it's kind of funny. Charles, your link didn't work, 404. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like pictures that show the world as it is and not how it should be. --Kritzolina (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support But what is the bird doing there ;-) --SHB2000 (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has some macabre humour. Why this image works for me, is that the colour scheme goes one on one between the bird and the sign. --Ximonic (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Evokes a western to me -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Magogre (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schachfiguren, Bauern -- 2022 -- 0022 (bw).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2022 at 18:27:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

[reply]

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Toys
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 18:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 18:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Problem is that the pieces wouldn't ever be like this. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem. This is part of the artistic design. It is not intended to represent a real chess game. From my point of view it is creative photography. --XRay 💬 18:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good handling of DOF. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has interesting symbolism, left to each viewer to react to as they like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support pretty cool looking image. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --Ivar (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support P'awn3d! Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Figure 1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Example of valid chess configuration based on that picture.

Figure 2

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Another possibility where Black wins in a few steps (turn white).

Figure 3

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black wins.

Figure 4

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Example of configuration that would logically lead to Figure 1 if both players play rationally.

Info @XRay: As a chess player, I wonder if Charlesjsharp (and others) can play ♟😆 Yes, this configuration is very possible, as long as the two kings are positioned in the corners (on the chessboard, but out of the framing). Verify with chessnextmove.com (a wrong configuration would display the message "set legal position", while here the program gives "Press PLAY button"). A queen and more pieces are maybe also hidden, from this angle. Chessmate? This configuration is reachable in a few dozens of moves, only, from a standard start. So simple. I think wrong allegations should be crossed out on an educational project. Proof game. What do you think? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try an answer with my shaky English. There are two things: the possibility of chess pieces placement and the educational value. When positioning the pieces, I ask myself (as a mathematician) how, on the one hand, the invisible squares could be occupied and, on the other hand, whether the position is possible (by which rules) by moving the pieces. It doesn't have to make sense, but it's possible. And when it comes to educational value as an argument, the question arises as to whether it doesn't actually have to mean that you can't imagine it. However, it is still possible. I can imagine a lot of educational values. In my view, the educational value argument is not conducive to photography. We should put photography in the foreground and not a possible, but not absolutely necessary use on Wikipedia. In my opinion, the educational values argument is not valid enough to be used. --XRay 💬 08:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me too, the picture is less about chess than about black & white, focus and DoF, singularity vs multiplicity. However, all sensibilities are possible, and I could understand special oppositions on the basis that, from the subjective point of view of the reviewers, the picture breaks some essential rules, if it was the case. This is not true. What is shown could be a real chess game. Unfortunately, erroneous considerations seem to be currently used by people who can't really play, or don't remember the rules (whatever they pretend). I am particularly bothered by "This does not represent any valid game position", and "for me it is important that the pieces are used correctly", below. Some readers can be deceived after such erroneous comments, because not everybody are familiar with chess. This game is complex, and the configuration shown is interesting, because Black could win, depending on where the kings are with other pieces. Nice also as part of recreational mathematics. There are a lot of similar enigmas, used as basis for scientific articles. But anyway, the purpose is different, and that's another reason to enjoy. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May be the problem should discussed as en:Mathematical chess problem. And what about photographs of the these kind of problems? ;-) --XRay 💬 10:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a chess project on WP, in English. Not sure they're interested in photography, though. But they can get inspired? ;-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, those would be some awesome photographs! You could also turn this into a set: this image leads the viewer to wonder whether or not the position is valid; and a second zoomed-out image reveals the kings in the corners, showing how the position is indeed technically possible (although unreachable in practice if at least one of the sides is playing rationally) -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Basile, for your comment and for this interesting discussion (or digression ;–). I used to play chess long ago and actually wondered why that configuration should not be possible; I kept quiet because I am no expert. But it is good to learn that the configuration is indeed possible ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Julesvernex2: it is reachable in practice. Not difficult to find a valid sequence of moves of the pieces that would lead to this situation -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know, that's what I meant by technically possible: one can sketch a valid sequence of moves that leads to this position, or use a retrogade analysis tool to simulate it. However, I also argued that this position is unreachable if at least one of the sides is playing rationally i.e. attempting to win in the fewer number of steps. For the sake of discussion, let's say that the queens on both sides do all the slaughtering, sparing only the surviving pawns and kings. If both sides are playing rationally, the game ends in a draw before reaching the target position, because no side will be willing to sacrifice its queen. If one side is playing rationally but the other side is playing randomly (within the realm of legal moves), then the rational side will eventually win before reaching the target position. I have a hunch that this example can be generalised i.e. that all games with at least one rational player will end before reaching this position: any ideas on how to prove (or disprove) it? :) -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chess games ending with a few pawns and just a rook or a bishop, are not so rare in practice, then I think rationale players could very well reach such a configuration, after the rooks (for example) disappeared. Imagine the previous pieces eaten were rooks or knights. Why these pawns have not been eaten yet, it totally depends on the previous moves, and where were the priorities, at each step, from the beginning. I'm not saying this is the most probable scenario statistically, but I totally believe it could be the ending version of honest amateurs, trying to win. Finding a realistic path (rationale on both sides) leading to these specific positions is more difficult for a human, but probably a machine would manage. And if a computer succeeds, then two normal human players could meet the same scenario, among the infinity of possibilities. In any case, it seems we agree the position of the pawns on the chessboard is valid, and that's probably the most important aspect of the discussion. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do indeed agree on that. Concerning the realistic path to get to this position, I think we also agree that it depends on the skill of the players: two monkeys playing randomly (but legally) can reach this position, whereas two hypothetical computers capable of en:Solving chess (i.e. capable of comparing the at least 10^120 possible game variations) cannot. Somewhere between these two extreme scenarios, there is a point where the skills of the players are high enough to make this position unreachable. You argue that human players are left of that point, I argue that they are right of it. I have no idea who's right, but it is a fascinating topic nonetheless :) -- 10:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Though young kids playing chess are not monkeys :-) And like more experienced players, they are constrained by the opponent. That's more a question of anticipation, in my view. Considering we don't know which pieces are hidden in the corners, there's no reason to conclude the players are weak. If we search step by step previous logical configurations leading to figure 4, before figure 1, little by little we approach a complex problem that gives sufficient food for thought to each player to consider the game interesting at their own level. Since each move is legal, the more we go back, the more pieces resuscitate on the chessboard, until the basic setup. There are so many potential sequences in chess, it's like winning at the lottery, in my opinion. Statistically, the sequence 1-2-3-4-5 has as much potential to occur as the random sequence 6-11-29-37-43. I mean these pawns aligned in column could be the result of luck, absolutely independent of players skill. How could we guess Black and White's individual tactics, beyond the appearance? Perhaps both sides have been dragged down by a long and difficult series of "checks", forcing each of them to sacrifice other pieces, and to spare the pawns just by necessity? There are two ways to see the situation, for me: 1) Given that 99% of the players on Earth are not professional but amateurs or beginners having fun, we can suppose they do their best to checkmate, until such a configuration occurs by accident, meaning none of them is mediocre, in the local context. And 2) Given that modern computers (and even mobile phones) are able to win against world champions nowadays, certainly a super-program (still real and created by human brains) conceived to force the opponent to move the pieces towards that specific configuration (each time they have the choice) could artificially provoke the pattern (for example by avoiding all the situations where the expected scenario would fail). Strongest, the machine entertains the human, who genuinely moves with the will to win, without realizing the targeted configuration becomes closer and closer to reality. In that case too, the human, professional master, is not a weak player, by hypothesis. In conclusion, the pattern shown on the picture seems reachable regardless of level. Not frequently, but potentially accessible for all. At least, this is my personal intuition. Anyhow, I agree with XRay these aligned pawns make particular sense in the realm of Mathematical chess problems, because this is a field where such matters are explicitly studied. That's without counting the other areas, unrelated to chess. I think strategy comes to mind when we look at this. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I can play chess and was school champion - so there! I said "Problem is that the pieces wouldn't ever be like this" - I DID NOT SAY they couldn't. I know English is not your native tongue Basile , but 'couldn't' and 'wouldn't' have a different meaning. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great! At least we agree the pieces COULD be there. Perhaps they would also be there if we played chess :-) Basile Morin (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Zero EV. This does not represent any valid game position --Wilfredor (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The statement of the picture is a different one. It is also not intended to represent a real game. Why do you think you shouldn't use chess pieces to represent a statement? Why should a photo always represent something real? --XRay 💬 14:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear XRay, It is a personal opinion, as a chess player, for me it is important that the pieces are used correctly. Of course, this is not equally important for everyone, without reaching the fallacy of exaggeration of thinking that a toothbrush can be represented in a photo as a bathroom cleaning tool (for example). Certainly EV is not a requirement for FPC, but I would hope to at least have some EV and not a confusing representation. Finally, art certainly judges a subjective role and I can only say that it is my humble opinion and I do not have the truth. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. What do you think, is en:Depth of field a possible educational value? Or en:Monochrome photography? --XRay 💬 17:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. It goes against the preconceived idea of how a chess game in progress could look like. The configuration of the pieces that I intuitively (wrongly) thought impossible makes it an arresting picture.Dinkum (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Toys

File:Shivaliks Himalayas Aerial Dehaze Himachal Feb20 R16 02827.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2022 at 06:24:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aerial view of the Shivaliks (foreground) and snow-capped Lesser Himalayas, Himachal. The mist and bluish cast are typical of a winter morning (brought out by haze reduction) -- Tagooty (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagooty, I assume you used Lightroom's Dehaze slider? Dehaze (together with Clarity and, to a lesser extent, Texture) can have a knock-on effect on Saturation, Contrast and Sharpening. Dialing down these sliders will often inch back the image closer to reality. Looking at the original version of the image, an alternative editing approach may be to apply haze reduction selectively, rather than to the entire image. You could perhaps use a couple of graduated filter to dehaze the sky/distant mountains and closer ridge without affecting the beautiful mist in the middle of the image? -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Outstanding motif, but technically not. It's too noisy. --Milseburg (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Julesvernex2: @Milseburg: Thanks for the reviews. I've reworked with graduated filters to dehaze only the distant range, sky and the foreground ridge. Noise is reduced. Please see the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagooty, in my view this is quite the improvement and a testament to what these modern 1-inch sensors can do. My remaining couple of suggestions are smaller and may already creep into the domain of photographer's choice: i) going back to the original image, some detail seems to have been lost to noise reduction. Selective noise reduction (stronger on the sky and lighter on the mountains) may be a worthwhile compromise; ii) I would be tempted to play with a warmer white balance, but I assume the blue cast was there in reality? -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Julesvernex2: Thanks for helping me with LR's graduated filters -- very useful tool. I've done selective NR on sky/distance only. Slight reduction in blue cast in the fore/middle as it was mid-morning. The blue cast is more pronounced early morning.
I find the combination of the stacked BSI 1" sensor + Zeiss-branded lens in the pocketable RX100M6 rivals a DSLR. Especially when shooting from a cramped seat in an ATR-72 plane. --Tagooty (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The differences to the original image seem subtle at first, but they hit all the right spots, great work. When you have a chance, do try out Lightroom's latest masking features (subject and sky selection, complex intersections), they are also very useful. -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive --Kritzolina (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support after latest edit. Daniel Case (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the improved version, as per Julesvernex2. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Magogre (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:1899 poster of Mme. M. Sissieretta Jones.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2022 at 21:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by Metropolitan Printing Co. - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Just for the record: Yes, I don't much like the words on the poster, but "The Black Patti" was used so often to refer to her that she made a whole music group named "The Black Patti Troubadours", and the "Greatest Singer of her Race" thing appears over and over - on her gravestone, on plaques related to her, as the subtitle of a biography... Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you at least change the Filename to just her name? I think that would be appropriate, I can't bring myself to support a file with this filename --Kritzolina (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me check at en-wiki, since it's featured there and there's some interesting ways to break the on-wiki system with file moves here.
  - @Kritzolina: There we go! Sorry, thought it better to do it right than quickly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you very much, this file name is so much better. While we cannot change the past, we can do a lot about how we represent it here on our projects. And this change of filename hopefully will be an example others will follow. --Kritzolina (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries! It's a great image for her, which is why I did it, but her publicists... Not as much of a fan. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is part of American history, and it's not nearly as bad as the covers of some Scott Joplin rags from the times when he sold his music outright and had no creative control over the sheet music covers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable contribution. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support … and a very good reproduction. --Aristeas (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent job, Adam. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent restoration, and per the title, sadly the use of such terms is a part of history and there's no use running from it Cmao20 (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gladly supporting now after the change of file name --Kritzolina (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera

File:NSB El 18 2252 with Regiontog between Brøttum and Ring.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2022 at 06:35:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 09:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding Cmao20 (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light and colours. --Aristeas (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Combination of lovely colours, light and composition. --Tagooty (talk) 15:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Color and composition easily overcome shadow on the mountain. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Farmhouse in Provence, 1888, Vincent van Gogh, NGA.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2022 at 08:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes
Info created by Vincent van Gogh / National Gallery of Art - uploaded by Crisco 1492 (high res by Aavindraa) - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. User:Aavindraa should be credited with uploading this amazing file in high res and the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC should be credited with the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing out. --IamMM (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Landscapes

File:Edinburgh from the air, 1920.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2022 at 18:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Alfred Buckham - uploaded by Koavf - nominated by A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fantastic photo composition, especially for the eraA. C. Santacruz (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the highest resolution, but OK for the era. Really a great capture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just realized there may be an issue with the copyright status of this image, if it was not first published in the US. For a regular UK image, this would only become PD in 2027, as the photographer died in 1956. However, the article did mention he was a reconnaissance photographer for the Royal Naval Air Service, so if it falls under Crown Copyright, then it is PD-UK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks. Let me know if there are issues. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Yes, it's a fantastic photo, and it's more than 100 years old, so it would be a travesty if it were still under copyright. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Changing to Oppose per Adam, now that I know all that resolution is possible.~~ -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's rather low resolution. Surely we can get a higher resolution one? If I go to [6] I can zoom in quite a lot more than this copy allows. Also, I'd like to get the copyright sorted first. Oppose, but would support if fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wonderful photo, but if we can get more resolution, we should do. --Aristeas (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support @Aristeas: @Adam Cuerden: @Koavf: @King of Hearts: @Ikan Kekek: I uploaded the full-res version. vip (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did some digging, re: copyright. This site explains that many soldiers took photographs that they registered for copyright. Some This page claims that the heirs have a copyright, but you know how these things go and there is also an extensive history of the photo that doesn't mention registration of the image. Some good faith searches yield nothing. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom and w:en:Crown copyright, this may be public domain 50 years post-publication. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- See also File:UK Crown copyright flowchart.pdf and File:UK non-Crown copyright flowchart.pdf for some very readable flowcharts on how copyright would apply. Were these held in copyright, then they would not be in the public domain in the UK for a few more years. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support for this magnificent picture from pioneering days of aerial photography (despite not clearly determined public domain). -- Radomianin (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm reinstating my support, though a digitally restored version could be even better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wonderful photo. Thank you very much for the version with full resolution! --Aristeas (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in higher resolution. --Yann (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maragota (Labrus bergylta), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 71.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2022 at 21:49:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Labridae_(Wrasses)
Info Ballan wrasse (Labrus bergylta), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. It is found in the eastern Atlantic Ocean, where it inhabits rocky areas. Like many wrasse species, it is a protogynous hermaphrodite—all fish start life as females, and some dominant fish later become males. It can grow to 65.9 cm (25.9 in) in total length (though most do not exceed 50 cm (20 in) standard length). c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sharp enough --Lupe (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lupe. I'm disappointed not to see the pretty scale pattern better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Useful photo but the crop on the left is too tight and insufficient sharpness on the fish itself for me Cmao20 (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palacio de Schönbrunn, Viena, Austria, 2020-02-02, DD 29-36 PAN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2022 at 21:45:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Austria
Info Schönbrunn Palace and the city of Vienna, Austria. The location, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, was the main summer residence of the Habsburg rulers. The site is one of the most important architectural, cultural, and historic sites in the country and a major tourist attraction since the mid-1950s.. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see a winter cityscape of this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the first glance the darker foreground may seem distracting, but actually it is useful to make the sunlit palace shine because of the contrast. --Aristeas (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best time of the year for this scene --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much unttractive foreground on the left and right side. --Milseburg (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. -- Karelj (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distracting foreground --Lupe (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I quite like it, the light on the building is nice and I agree with Aristeas about the darker foreground being nice for contrast Cmao20 (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice cityscape. --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 10:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing format and foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]