Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2020

File:Dandelion Gosling (49922177848).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2020 at 17:47:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Branta
Info created and uploaded by K6ka - nominated by 1989 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 1989 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Underexposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That could be sorted, but it's not very sharp and poor light. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, and very cute, but at least half a stop underexposed. Cmao20 (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the photographer, I have the raw file in case anyone wants to make adjustments to the photo (not required but you're welcome to it). They're available on the Internet Archive. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose To me, it doesn't need all the extra space; the unsharp areas of the background are somewhat distracting. However, cropping in closer might put the picture under the FP minimum. Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- While I see the technical imperfections, it has the wow-factor for me. MartinD (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Cute but significantly underexposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others though it's a pleasure to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nosal i widok na Tatry.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2020 at 07:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Poland
Info created by Qvidemus - uploaded by Qvidemus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 07:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent candidate. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: needs perspective correction. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rotes Rathaus, Berlin-Mitte, Fassadendetails Ostseite, 160213, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2020 at 15:11:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info A beautiful and well-lit image showing the detailing of the east facade of the Rotes Rathaus ('Red City Hall') in Berlin. created by Code - uploaded by Code - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good rhythm and perfect lighting conditions. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support lighting. A small perspective correction would perfect the photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lightning. --T.Bednarz (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those "shouldn't work but it does" images. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really pleasant. Support per others except Daniel. :-) (Because I think the image should work and does. I know what he means, though - a lot of similar images wouldn't work because the composition or lighting wasn't as good.). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Home made sour dough bread.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2020 at 00:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Bread
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the light, the resolution, the yum factor... all good :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! Resolution is super and the composition is good too Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it looks like vignette effect and the shadow on the left starts to obscure the loafs. Renata3 (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ah, the smell of fresh bread! MartinD (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. I also like the way the breads are sort of arranged to look like the Olympic logo, for some reason. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alsakan (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --PERSIA♠ 07:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support eye catching - Benh (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and good-looking bread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Juvenile robin (12336).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2020 at 01:37:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Turdidae_(Thrushes)
Info American robin fledgling. The bar for bird FPs is quite high recently, but I was happy with the detail of this portrait and the way it captures those silly looking fledgling feathers sticking up. :) created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A number of issues. The bits of grass in front of the bird is not good and I don't find the crop pleasing. DoF not deep enough. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support for that cute head! That's all that needs to be sharp in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20180819 ReuttenerSeilbahn vorZugspitze blau DSC00935 PtrQs.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2020 at 12:50:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Cableways
Info created & uploaded by PtrQs - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice minimalistic composition. -- Tomer T (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mimihitam (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing spectacular here. Seven Pandas (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but I incline to agree with Seven Pandas. It's all a bit empty for me, there's not much tension in the composition. Cmao20 (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject in the shadow -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As this picture is generated from a raw file there is almost no limit to highlighting, but a) the gondola is coated by tinted glass, and b) artificially minimizing the constrast would mean to destroy the monochromatic blueish look by flashy red colors. --PtrQs (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you can save this nomination with a better post-processing, unfortunately, this gondola is very dark and thus uninteresting in my view (like this one) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 11:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 03:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the overall effect very much. I don't think it's a problem that the gondola is darker than the background -- which is the real subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support love the overall effect, gondola is not the object here, but the background with its lovely shades of blue. Renata3 (talk) 07:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The odd position and lighting on the gondola may have been intentional, but it doesn't work fo me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing stands out to warrant FP. -- Alsakan (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could see this working as a horizontal ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This composition just does not work on a computer screen. I really dislike it especially in full screen mode. But looking at the thumb on the nomination page made me realize: It needs to be printed large, hung on an otherwise empty white wall and looked at from a distance of at least 3 meters. Perfect for waiting rooms or for relaxing your eyes in the office. Stare at it and get lost in your thoughts. The gondola could be a plain black silhouette and it wouldn't matter. It is not what you're looking at, it's only there to provide an additional layer of depth – and because of that it is positioned exactly where it needs to be. --El Grafo (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support El Grafo's idea finally convinced me. --T.Bednarz (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support how to take great shot in the day of bad atmospheric conditions. --Grtek (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to oppose, but I looked at the full-page image from about 1.5 and then 1.7 or so meters, and I see more depth in it from there. I think I'll abstain. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support no surprise - I like it. --PtrQs (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say, what a dramatic vote and ending haha. Tomer T (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tomer T: Thank you for your nomination and support. I believe it was so tight because it seperates those, who see what's in the pure original picture from those, who see, what's in the picture they see in their mind. And thanks to all the others for revealing their opinion and resulting evaluation - especially @El Grafo: . --PtrQs (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Cableways

File:Fin garden ceiling2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2020 at 11:45:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great quality but the top/bottom symmetry seems a little off to me. Maybe a bit too similar to the other nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The detail is great. Hard to see how many birds are in the pattern without being at full size. :) Might bring up the shadows just a touch? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Again, I can't get this one to open in the Large image viewer. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zitting cisticola feeding its chicks.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2020 at 12:22:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Cisticolidae
Info created by Budi Santoso Adji - uploaded by Budi Santoso Adji - nominated by Mimihitam -- Mimihitam (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mimihitam (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't remove other nominations when you add yours. I assume it was accidental, so be more careful. --Cart (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter that was indeed accidental, and I really apologize for the oversight. Mimihitam (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit noisy, but forgiveable for such a nice shot. I like the composition very much. Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive capture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Low resolution and a bit noisy but extraordinary capture -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would so like to support this, but it needs TLC to fix halos around the plant, reduce blown highlights if possible, fix noise and improve sharpness. It's never going to be prefect, but it deserves remedial attention - hopefully Budi Santoso Adji there's a RAW version to start from? Then it would come into POTY reckoning. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Those are green stripes, not halos, on this variety of bamboo. Compare with the top branch. --Cart (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am talking about halos Cart, not stripes. There is a band of lighter colour surrounding each stem about half the width of the stem. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meiræ 03:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose @Budi Santoso Adji, Mimihitam, W.carter, Cmao20, King of Hearts, Basile Morin, Palauenc05, Ermell, Meiræ, Rhododendrites, Johann Jaritz, and Agnes Monkelbaan: I have already asked for the image quality to be improved, but the photographer is not active here. There is a weakness in third parties nominating images where they have no control over the image they are nominating. We all make mistakes, but nominators should try to verify the accuracy of the subject description before nomination. The birds in this image are incorrectly identified. There are two cisticolas in Indonesia. This is the golden-headed cisticola (Cisticola exilis). Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp thank you for pointing this out. Shall I change the name of the file then? Mimihitam (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be happy if someone changed the file name of any of my images. This is for the photographer only who may challenge my id if they wisħ. This is an obvious error and my id in this instance Basile Morin has been validated by one of Asia's top bird experts after I first checked in one of his field guides, but many identifications of LBJs (Little Brown Jobs) are challenging and third parties should in general not correct identifications. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These two species are very similar. For me the wow is about the situation (not the kind of spectacle you see every day). However, it's important yes that the animals are well identified. It might be fixable. Personally, I can't distinguish both (perhaps a species feeding another one ? 🐥😉) -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charles, and the background is noisy, and the highlights on the birds' chest are a bit too bright. Due to the lack of metadata I cannot tell if this was due to technical constraints on the shot or not. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Daniel Poco a poco (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot, i can see it in POTY Finale. --Mile (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Mimihitam, Cmao20, King of Hearts, Basile Morin, Palauenc05, Basotxerri, Ermell, Meiræ, Rhododendrites, Johann Jaritz, Agnes Monkelbaan, Karelj, and PetarM: I am very surprised that you are happy to promote an image which is incorrrectly identified. I'd love to know your thinking please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: the guidelines allow you to request the renaming of a file. Commons:File renaming#Which files should be renamed? Reason 3: To correct obvious errors in filenames, including misspelled proper nouns, incorrect dates, and misidentified objects or organisms. If you're absolutely sure the species is different, then just rename the file, what's the problem? If you're not sure, then maybe the photographer was right, and all is fine for us. As you can see yesterday I updated the description based on this discussion. I think this way the readers can judge and evaluate fairly what they're looking at. Finding the exact species is sometimes difficult, even for experts. A FP of mine won the 1st prize of WLS France although the species has always been unsure (I contacted high experts for precise identification, but they could not be 100% affirmative). Thus I think a margin of uncertainty is tolerated here. Most of us are photographers, not biologists. As I said above, this image is striking because three juvenile birds are fed by a parent, a rare thing in picture. And to be honest, I don't really care about the exact species, I attach much more importance to the behavior. Zitting cisticola and Cisticola exilis on Google are so similar, frankly it is not a drama. Hope this answers your question. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: I must support Basile Morin's statement. Being a historian of literature, I don't know much about ornithology, hence, I must trust the uploader and/or the nominator. If you can attribute the birds more exactly, I would encourage you to change the file name and the description accordingly. The alternative would be that only ornithologists could evaluate such pictures. --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and please change the name and description accordingly with an appropriate edit summary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sociable weaver (Philetairus socius).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2020 at 20:43:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Ploceidae (Weavers)
Info All by Charlesjsharp-- Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the gradient in the background. Cmao20 (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality, nice separation of the background. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Three-course meal including Bistecca alla fiorentina (Bistec a la fiorentina).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2020 at 17:41:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Andrei (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crops don't work for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I take Charles' point but it looks so tasty I can't oppose, especially when you have presented it to us with such high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a nice, moody image and the crop is OK for me, too. However the flaw I see is that according to the image title, the scene is about the meat which isn't in focus while focus is set on the secondary elements like bread and the cheese. --Basotxerri (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~* Support~~ The focus should have been on the lemons, then the roast would certainly have been a bit sharper. But it is still good.--Ermell (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with T.Bednarz.--Ermell (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, according to Wikipedia, it shouldn't be served with lemon. All the bread etc. has nothing to do with the dish (Bistecca alla fiorentina), which is (as pointed out above) blurred. My view, as written previously Cmao20, is that high resolution should not be a major factor to be considered here. High resolution for panoramas, church interiors, macro insects etc. are essential so you can zoom in on the details. High resolution of an out-of-focus image surely doesn't add any value, does it? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose According to the title “Bistecca alla Fiorentina” the meat has to be in the center of the picture and not cheese and bread, which are not elements of a real Fiorentina dish.--Christof46 (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tomascastelazo, I fixed the gallery and categories for you on this since you still seems to have some trouble with that. Do you want me to re-name and move this file to: "Three-course meal including Bistecca alla fiorentina (Bistec a la fiorentina).jpg"? I think that would make this nomination go better. --Cart (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cart lol! I am useless in categorizing!!! I woul really appreciate you doing what you suggest!!! Keep safe and many thanks!!! Tomascastelazo (talk)

Ok, will fix. Stay safe, you too! --Cart (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basotxerri, Christof46, Charlesjsharp, file renamed and page moved. --Cart (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Cart ping those who voted in favour of the previous description, not just the oppose voters. Let's have balance. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp, I pinged those who had voiced some problem with the name or the context of it, otherwise I would've pinged opposer T.Bednarz in that post too. But as per your request I'm pinging everybody else now, I hope that is satisfactory for you. Pinging Cmao20, Andrei, Ermell. --Cart (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

simply changing the wording of the title makes me confused, what is the message of the picture?--Christof46 (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Though the enormous resolution, I am not a fan of this image. Considering it as a studio shot, I'd prefer not to have the cropped parts of the image, like the plate or the lemon slices, displayed in it at all. I'm also not impressed by the focus, since the main part of the dish is blurred as mentioned above. However, the piece of blue tapestry in the background looks also quite redundant to me. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- My criterium when looking at pictures of food is, does it make me hungry? This picture does. MartinD (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per T.Bednarz. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Bread and Cheese to be eaten after having a nice Bistecca". OK, then. And per MartinD. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Also, the foods are not appealing enough for me. -- Alsakan (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The whole table to me looks too arranged for a real-life situation but too chaotic for a studio setup. It feels like ist was arranged hastily ("before you all dig in, let's push it all together so we can take a picture"), and that doesn't work. The crumpled corner of the red tapestry plays a big part in that. As it is now, the three slices of bread are the visual focal point of the image in terms of location, sharpness, lighting and exposure – but not in a way that would make them the star of the image, as all the other dished look much more interesting from a culinary POV. --El Grafo (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just too cluttered compositionally. Less would definitely have been more here. Daniel Case (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 12:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfavorable crop.--Milseburg (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. It all looks delicious, but I think it would have been better compositionally to focus on a subset of these items and not crop anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Stolová hora to the north in the morning.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2020 at 16:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Czech Republic
Info all by me. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice atmospheric shot. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH Cmao20 (talk) 00:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough imo; it looks like a photo any tourist could take, not one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 08:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree, a good shot but not yet at FP level to me in terms of wow-effect, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others -- Alsakan (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle and others. Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love that compo. --Grtek (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The dust spots are very disturbing.--Ermell (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ermell. Fix the dust spots and I'll take another look. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Cologne Germany Cologne-Gay-Pride-2015 Parade-06.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2020 at 12:07:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Cccefalon - uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Persia -- PERSIA♠ 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 12:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's definitely a nice and interesting portrait but it lacks some wow due to the poor lightning and DoF IMO. --T.Bednarz (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background. --Palauenc05 (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely woman and colors --Wilfredor (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A different subject for FP, but I don't like the composition so much, with the blurry wires and the out-of-focus camera in the background. Cmao20 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above --Andrei (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--ahuR ☘ 09:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garden warbler (Sylvia borin) at the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2020 at 12:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Sylviidae (Sylviid Warblers)
Info created by Victor1806 - uploaded by Victor1806 - nominated by Persia -- PERSIA♠ 12:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PERSIA♠ 12:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice quality but the bird is too small in the frame for me, there's not enough detail on it. Cmao20 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights in every buds, and per Cmao20 -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose per Basile. Contrary to Cmao, I actually like the way this composition works. But technically it's not handled well. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If I thought the composition were great, I would support the photo in spite of Cmao20's and Basile's observations, but I think the composition is nice yet not great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--ahuR ☘ 09:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:FelipeHeredia (retouched).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2020 at 13:00:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Drawings and lithographies
Info created by César Hipólito Bacle - scanned/uploaded by Ezarate restored by PawełMM - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ezarateesteban 13:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia Nova Gracanica, Trebinje, Bosnia y Herzegovina, 2014-04-14, DD 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2020 at 23:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
Info I promised Poco I would nominate this picture a while ago after he made some edits to it at my request. It's Hercegovačka Gračanica, a Serbian Orthodox monastery that is a close copy of the Gračanica Monastery in Kosovo, a World Heritage Site built in the C14th. I think it's an interesting and unusual place, and Poco has captured it under nice light. Created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Quality/detail not the highest, but lighting is very nice indeed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! :) Thank you Cmao20! Poco a poco (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Bosnia_and_Herzegovina

File:Durmitor mountains, Montenegro.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2020 at 11:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Montenegro
Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and for once I think the shadows really add to it, they give the landscape depth somehow. Maybe the resolution is a bit low for FP though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you add the location? -- -donald- (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
done --Pudelek (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose It is not "extraordinary enough to be FP" for me. It is highly subjective. I have seen a lots of mountainous landscapes in my life and this one is just too ordinary for me (although defínitelly nice and well done.) --Grtek (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Grtek Poco a poco (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sort of per Grtek, but if the sharpness at full size hadn't struck me as underwhelming, I might have supported. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luther church in Apolda 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2020 at 12:40:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice place and well-lit but it looks to me like the tower at the back is falling over backwards. Could you fix that? Cmao20 (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO too normal image, not special enough, missing wow. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Striking angle on the church, but clouds, shadow and awkward crop at left are too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Stadtquartier Overbergplatz -- 2020 -- 7378 (bw).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2020 at 17:14:58 (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 ^talk 17:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support perspective and special. Black / white gives me an extra dimension.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Famberhorst. Cmao20 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the tilt, nor the crop at the bottom -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile.--Peulle (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I couldn't find anything spectacular enough to get this image featured. Although the cloud gap with the rooftops is an interesting idea, it doesn't work for me overall. --T.Bednarz (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition is not for me --Andrei (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Klagenfurt Innere Stadt Theaterplatz 4 Stadttheater SW-Ansicht 18052020 9029.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2020 at 14:36:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Austria
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Seven Pandas -- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a bit of a shame that this lovely building has two big posters hanging on it, but that's not the photographer's fault. Overall this is good architectural photography, nicely composed and shot under attractive light. Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI, but not exceptional enough for FP in my opinion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nové Mlýny Reservoir - Dam 2020 07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2020 at 20:58:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Czech Republic
Info all by me. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The exact gallery for the Czech Republic doesn't yet exist. Not sure about the right procedure. --T.Bednarz (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light is maybe not the best but I like the composition and the reflection. Wouldn't worry about specifying a gallery that doesn't exist yet, I've done that before. Cmao20 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light, ordinary image -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's fine, but lacking in wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile -- Alsakan (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile, also rather cluttered compositionally. Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I disagree with some of you, in that I think this is a good composition and the clouds really help. However, the sharpness isn't overwhelming and I'd love a little more light to shine on the dam. I think this is a good motif and a strong QI and near-FP photo, and it's worth trying to shoot this scene in different lights and weather conditions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pfersag-Wasserfall-20200308-RM-113024.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2020 at 21:37:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pfersag waterfall in the district of Lichtenfels in Upper Franconia

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info Waterfall in the district of Lichtenfels in Upper Franconia. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Very beautiful, but framing could be slightly better: crop out a bit on the left, give a bit more breathing room at the top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very high resolution but the light is not very attractive, and the composition not well balanced (crop at the top too tight) -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Basile. I wasn't sure about this and I nearly supported it because of the great resolution, but I don't like the light, it's too dull for me and doesn't stand out from other FP waterfalls. I also think the detail looks a little bit odd at full size, hard to explain it though. Cmao20 (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, and the amount of water is a bit limited, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, and pleasant to look at at full size as well. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SL Galle Fort asv2020-01 img24.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2020 at 15:05:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Sri Lanka
Info Galle Lighthouse, Galle (Sri Lanka) ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 15:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. Cmao20 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The feeling that the lighthouse is falling back is a clear minus here. Probably was not possible to manage otherwise, but the POV is to close to the lighthouse, Poco a poco (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco a poco. --Grtek (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the angle of the camera, the perspective is skewed. Dan arndt (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:ChevreFeral.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2020 at 10:14:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the gallery here>]]
Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by BluesyPete -- BluesyPete (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- BluesyPete (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unusual scene but the composition doesn't convince. Technical quality unfortunately below minimum requirements. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the level of quality is far below FP standards.--Peulle (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capsicum - Mercado Municipal Funchal 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2020 at 16:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Spices
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a flag. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dolina Chochołowska i tatrzańskie krokusy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2020 at 10:13:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Poland
Info created by Qvidemus - uploaded by Qvidemus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I like this. I can see others opposing because of the blurry foreground though. I don't mind the blown-out areas, it seems to me that in a very bright sunny photo the highlights kind of should be dazzlingly bright. Overall this is a dreamlike composition and it really works. Cmao20 (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood and some beautiful light effects. --Bob Collowan (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart fromt the tilt I see a nice scene with moderate wow effect, disturbing elements (like left crop, shadow on right) and some overexposed areas, overall not a FP to me, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco a poco. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco, but I also find it overly busy compositionally (maybe something focusing more on just the hut and the trees behind it) and harshly lit on the right. Daniel Case (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's nice, but it's so bright that I can't see details in any of the flowers on the ground, and I want to. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Masked Lapwing - Newington.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2020 at 05:00:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Vanellus
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a small cloning error JJ Harrison? - see note Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hard to tell whether it's a cloning error, but it looks real enough that it could be how it actually looks. Good quality and FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The colors look washed-out and the white balance seems to be off. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Schulenburg: Did You look at shooting time? It was early in the morning, when light conditions were soft and warm. --Ivar (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice-looking bird. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice motif but a bit small and the blurry area at the bottom is too dominant Poco a poco (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Poco --Andrei (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I feel like that amount of blurred area damages the composition enough for it not to be an FP. It looks like I'll be outvoted, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, and I've not had a response to the question I asked. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Memorial Day 2020 - San Francisco Under Quarantine (49935629483).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2020 at 18:02:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#United States
Info created by Christopher Michel - uploaded by Tm - nominated by Mxn -- Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just as striking and educational as the photo from May 23 but higher-quality. Though the grass has gotten a little worn by Memorial Day, it shows more of the circles and a larger crowd has come out to use them. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question I would support if it was taken legally and the CC licence etc. is OK. Is it illegal to fly a drone in a San Francisco park? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: The photo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license, which is acceptable for this project. As for whether the photographer broke any rules, I can't say for certain. The Recreation & Parks Department doesn't allow drones to take off or land at city parks without permission, but Dolores Park isn't in an FAA no-drone zone. [1][2][3] The photographer hasn't indicated whether the drone took off from Dolores Park or from somewhere else nearby for this particular photo, or whether they got permission to take off at the park. (Some other photos were taken a good distance away from the park.) – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 23:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Neptuul (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support yeah, this one definitely. --A.Savin 23:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice thumbnail, unfortunately at full size blown highlights everywhere, in every single white part. Technically not well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, a nice illustration of the Quarantine period, but otherwise per Basile Morin. --Cayambe (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support idea & compo clearly outweigh minor technical issues --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow.--Grtek (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin. --Karelj (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Ivar (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong compo, quality is improvable but still ok to me give the wow factor Poco a poco (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Alsakan (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. A VI in all likelihood, but we can only forgive the technical failings of drones so much. Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I find this compelling. Support per Martin, et al. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but would not be opposed to replacing if we get a similar shot that addresses the technical issues. it's too interesting and visually compelling not to feature in some way, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, W.carter uploaded an edited version with highlights suppressed, in case that addresses the feedback above. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 10:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I preferred the original nom. I don't really like the too bright blanket, but overall I'd like one of these photos as an FP, and this is also good. Tomer T (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SL Horton Plains NP asv2020-01 img08.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2020 at 13:35:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sri Lanka
Info Landscape in the Horton Plains National Park, Sri Lanka ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite common outdoor scene, doesn't seem very special to me. Overall quite a lot of uninteresting sky, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normal landscape, not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same. common, harsh light and all. - Benh (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, though the scenery is beautiful in its various elements. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but per above. Good QI, but the composition is not as good as your usual standard at FP. Cmao20 (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Seems like it could be special with raking light giving us a better sense of the scene's depth. I see what you were trying to get. Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lamprotornis superbus - Karlsruhe Zoo 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2020 at 11:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Sturnidae (Starlings)
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Note that there is some color noise in the background which should be easy to clean up with minimal degradation in image quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the hint --Llez (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Poco a poco (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sorry, I take it back, I wasn't aware that it was taken in a tropical hall Poco a poco (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very harsh flash and annoying shadow. - Benh (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful bird but the flash ruins it. I agree with Benh -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems fine to me, it's a very beautiful bird. Cmao20 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think we should need a flash for this bird in a zoo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why Not? Light coonditions in a Zoo are sometimes more difficult than in nature. This bird was photographed indoor in the "Exotic hall" which was very dark compared with outside. --Llez (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, I understand, but am surprised that a bird gets no daylight in a zoo. They do in London Zoo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I didn't say "no daylight", but in a room it is always darker, please see here. The birds fly free, but the light conditions are not optimal --Llez (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manneporte en soir.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2020 at 10:15:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Normandy
Info Cliffs of Étretat with natural arch Manneporte. Created by Jörg Braukmann - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh yes. --A.Savin 12:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very beautiful. The horizon is a bit wavy, see if you can do something about it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition, but sharpness could be better. There are halos at the rocks in the background and the horizon looks like a barrel. --XRay ^talk 18:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alsakan (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another lovely composition. In the past I sometimes opposed your nominations because I didn't see a clear composition, but I haven't had anything to complain about lately. Cmao20 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I like a straight horizon. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: the horizon is perfectly straight. I checked it on Photoshop. Eventually darken the picture to reveal the horizon line clearly. The impression of a curve is an illusion, made by the reflection of the sun at the surface of the sea. You can oppose for the aspect this phenomenon provokes, but in state your review is wrong (in my opinion) -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did that and it is actually curved. If it's the natural curvature of the Earth then the image should be rotated Milseburg 0.5 degrees clockwise to remove the barrel effect. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been to Étretat and the picture really managed to do justice to the beauty of the place. Mimihitam (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light. --Aristeas (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Wald-Kahlkopf (Psilocybe pelliculosa)-20191014-RM-112540.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2020 at 20:13:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Strophariaceae
Info created & uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love how the crops make this feel like a tall mushroom. Nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ermell knocks it out of the park again. Cmao20 (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support dead leaves make it, but, hey, where are the bugs?? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) @Charlesjsharp. Thanks for the nom @Tomer T. I was more than down on my knees @Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely captured. Great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chafer May 2020-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2020 at 22:50:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods
Info A Summer Chafer (Amphimallon solstitiale), a beautiful beetle of the Scarabeidae family. About 20 mm long, swarming over rough grassland during summer. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As it is a 'studio' shot, focus-stacking would give a better depth of field. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden Pheasants by John Henry Hintermeister.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2020 at 03:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Animals
Info created by Jacqke - uploaded by Jacqke - nominated by Jacqke -- Jacqke (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacqke (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see you've done a huge amount of work Jacqke uploading images of this painter and creating articles. All very useful to promote your interest in the painters, but I have reverted your edit on the golden pheasant article on Wikipedia as the infobox image should not be a painting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not exactly the styles I prefer for the subject but a beautiful painting nonetheless --Alsakan (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oenopia lyncea3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2020 at 06:36:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Coccinellidae_(Ladybugs)
Info created by Gilles San Martin - uploaded & nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasing composition. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do we have any policy on the ethics of uploading a third party's image and making changes to it for an FP nomination? I do not think that should be the role of Commons. Please see FP talk page. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changes are minor. Some softening of detail, but overall an improvement. Typical errors of careless focus-stacking remain - blurred edges all around insect. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good sharp photo, nice find. Cmao20 (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But the description is very poor (no size, no location and so on) --Llez (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree completely with Llez. What kind of plant is that, and are all the white things larvae, worms or part of the plant? Is there any way to find out? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: the beetle is on the leaf. --Ivar (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's clear that the beetle is on the leaf. What's not clear is what plant it is or what all the white stuff is. Those things need to be explained, or I feel like I should oppose for lack of sufficient information, in spite of being very impressed by the photo. Maybe the author can explain what we're looking at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: google for leaf trichomes. --Ivar (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, put the information in the description or get the author to do so, so that people know what they're looking at! This isn't about me, and I'm not the only one who's finding the description inadequate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but the reflections/flare on the animal are the main reason for my oppose. Also per Liez and Ikan Kekek. --Cayambe (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - OK, that's enough. Oppose due to inadequate description. When the description is made adequate, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus-stacking errors. Typical problems that arise when you nominate someone else's image without the ability to answer queries or improve the image. I asked the photographer on Flickr if he could upload a new version, but he is too busy and acknowledges the focus-stacking has not had any of the essential post-processing we need at FP. ̴̴ Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family_:_Coccinellidae_(Ladybugs)

File:New York City (New York, USA), Empire State Building -- 2012 -- 6448.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2020 at 06:41:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United_States
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 06:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 06:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's quite a useful image, but I'm afraid I'm not too impressed with the technical quality. I may be influenced by all the excellent drone photos I see at work every day, but I just feel like I'd expect more from an FP.--Peulle (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd be delighted to be able to snap that good a photo, but for FP, I think its depth of field is too short and too much of it is quite unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A tremendously useful photo with nice helpful annotations, but I agree with Ikan's critiques for FP, and I'm not too keen on the perspective distortion. Cmao20 (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you for your reviews. --XRay ^talk 03:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay ^talk 14:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sapporo Concert Hall Kitara-20091013-RM-122400.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2020 at 13:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Japan
Info created & uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bridge of Lovers Kiev.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2020 at 11:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Ukraine
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I especially like the composition and autumn mood of this picture. --Domob (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 11:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice mood indeed. Cmao20 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad picture, but I feel we have thousands of this sort already. The shadow is very intense at the bottom, the path indistinct, the contrasts not really appealing in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not one of the best on the site, imo. --Peulle (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin. -- Karelj (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. QI for sure but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks everyone for the feedback! --Domob (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Front court of Wartburg Castle (4).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2020 at 12:43:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Tournasol7, it's a really interesting place and a high-quality photo but I miss any great composition or light. Cmao20 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've always been a sucker for bright subjects against a grey sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice leading lines. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Little bee-eater (Merops pusillus argutus) Namibia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2020 at 17:19:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Meropidae (Bee-eaters)
Info This is the smallest bee-eater at 15cm in length. It uses low perches over water so floating past in a boat allows a shot at eye-level. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful bird Cmao20 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely. Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Intrusive foreground. I would cut more at the left, and perhaps reduce slightly at the top. You get a better focus on the bird, and the plant is less distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have uploaded cropped version Basile Morin. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 05:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The suboptimal compo with the bird behind the branch is compensated with crispy sharpness and a beautiful bird Poco a poco (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail for such a small image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Thanks, but did you mean 'small image' Daniel? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe it isn't so small. It just resolved rather quickly when I looked at it in full size. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Meropidae (Bee-eaters)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Lago del Rey, Alemania, 2019-05-17, DD 25.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2020 at 21:44:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info Cottage at Königssee, Germany. I enjoy the contrast of green forest and white mountains here with a nice cottage in between and the lake in the front. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute composition. Shame about the top left corner, but no big deal on a 50 MP sensor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and KoH. Quality is fine, one would barely notice the blurry corners on a 20mpx downsample. Cmao20 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Frank. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Needs a bit of work on pincushion distortion (if that's the right description). The reflections in the water are a long way off vertical except in the centre. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I adressed that, Charlesjsharp, among other adjustments --Poco a poco (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 10:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. I like the balance of the two mountains. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appealing weather -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too unsharp on the left side IMO --Llez (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Llez.--Ermell (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose Very nice picture, but the blur on the top left doesn't make it an FP for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful very weak oppose per Famberhorst. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St. George's Anglican Church tower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2020 at 22:15:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Canada
Info: St. George's Anglican Church tower, Georgina, Ontario, Canada; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NR has destroyed a lot of the detail in the trees. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done: it's not as much NR as recovering the shadows that did that, but it should be a bit better now. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's a nice enough image, but I don't think it's one of the best on Commons, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --Basotxerri (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. Nice but not breathtaking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A QI, but really too static to rise above that level. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torre del silencio, Yazd, Irán, 2016-09-21, DD 60-64 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2020 at 21:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Iran
Info Tower of Silence (also known as 'Dakhma'), old settlement nearby and city of Yazd, Iran. A Tower of Silence is a circular, raised structure built by Zoroastrians for excarnation – that is, for dead bodies to be exposed to carrion birds, usually vultures. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ It's a great panorama, but it looks like it's strongly tilted downwards to the right to me. Happy to change my vote if this can be fixed, but it's pretty disconcerting as-is. Cmao20 (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cmao20: I uploaded a new version, hopefully I address your concern --Poco a poco (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks! Cmao20 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Structures look vertical. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not tilted IMO --Llez (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's great to see another one of your beautiful panoramas of Iran. I particularly love the desert mountains in the haze on the right that look almost like mirages. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Avenida Presidente Julio A. Roca y calle Bolívar1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2020 at 06:45:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Argentina
Info: President Julio A. Roca Avenue and Bolívar Street, Buenos Aires. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little distorted at the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normal good image, nothing special fo FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh contrast, artifacts, low quality --Wilfredor (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice urban photo, but ultimately, not an FP to me. Maybe if a ray of light were hitting the statue of the two men and the bell and it were sharp at full size, but neither of those things is true. Whenever you are back there, try this or similar views in different lights and see if you can get them a lot sharper, keeping in mind how sharp a lot of the photos you're being judged against at FPC are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Equisetum telmateia Fallätsche drops 20200507.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2020 at 06:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Equisetaceae
Info created by Domob - uploaded by Domob - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are three other FPs of Equisetaceae, but I think all of them are quite different from this one. This picture is more "natural", and I like the bushy form of the young plant as well as the dew droplets on it. --Domob (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Domob (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting grass and cluttered background -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Basile, there's room for improvement in terms of composition, DoF and wow-effect Poco a poco (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile -- Alsakan (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Nice plant, but could use more isolation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the dew droplets. Background could be better I agree, but it's FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 02:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It might yet be possible to crop in more tightly on the plant and get rid of the background as an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I've provided an alternative. --Domob (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate[edit]

Comment As suggested by Daniel Case, here's a tighter crop.
Weak support I prefer the wider crop myself, but this one seems fine to me as well. --Domob (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Johann Jaritz, Sonya7iv, Basile Morin, Poco a poco, Alsakan, Ikan Kekek, Cmao20, what do you think about the alternative? Thanks! --Domob (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Normal image, not very special. Short DoF, and I still find the background cluttered -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile, the item itself is not so wowing. If you could have used a macro lens and focus on some drops with those nice reflections...(just to give you an idea of what could have been a special shot) Poco a poco (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile and Poco --Alsakan (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's better, but so far, I'm still undecided. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ultimately, I agree with Basile's criticisms. If you could get more separation and more of the plant in sharp focus, you might have an FP, but that may not be possible with this foreground and background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 Audi FIS Ski Weltcup Garmisch-Partenkirchen Damen - Ragnhild Mowinckel - by 2eight - 8SC0249.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2020 at 08:43:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual snow sports
Info created by Stefan Brending - uploaded by 2eight - nominated by Persia -- ahuR ☘ 08:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ahuR ☘ 08:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good closeup, but the big wow is missing for me.--Peulle (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a good picture, but no wow recognizable. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Peulle. --Domob (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It might have worked without either the reflection on the goggles or the bicolored background, but not with both. Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--ahuR ☘ 19:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mrs. Louis Dreyfus.tif[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2020 at 08:27:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1950
Info created by Nick Parrino - uploaded by Persia - nominated by Persia -- ahuR ☘ 08:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ahuR ☘ 08:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The date is obviously wrong - it's the date of the upload to Commons, not the date when the photo was taken. You need to add that information. I also think the description must be erroneous. Did the U.S. ever have a "Minister to Iran"? I think not, and I suppose you mean the U.S. Ambassador. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Minister seems correct, though the complete title should be 'Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary'. This diplomatic rank was still used in the 1940's but is now obsolete. -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

more information--ahuR ☘ 09:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done information added --El Grafo (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The composition is not ideal, there are many visible dust spots which could be removed, the picture is insufficiently categorized and it would be good if the description could provide a bit more context. For me, this is more of a snapshot, not one of the best images on Commons. -- B2Belgium (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per B2Belgium. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1.--Peulle (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but please nominate this at COM:VIC in the most appropriate scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Karelj (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--ahuR ☘ 19:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schedel Damaskus 1497.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2020 at 15:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Other
Info View of Damascus in Schedel's World History (1497), reproduced from an original woodcut of 1497, uploaded and nominated by -- Palauenc05 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! A rare print of the pirated Augsburg edition from 1497! I've recently bought a colored print of the somewhat larger first edition (Nuremberg 1493, German). I hope I'll be able to provide a high quality scan some time. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Damascus? It would be interesting to compare the two. --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, Munich --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Adorable --Sonya7iv (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic condition! Is that an unrestored picture? What great paper they used! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ... just a few spots removed. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Other

File:The Capture of the Forts at Taku.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2020 at 13:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Printed#Other
Info created by Fritz Neumann - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see one of your restorations again here. Excellent of course. Cmao20 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have a suggestion, though: I think it would be a good idea to include the fact that this is an illustration from [name of book, year of publication] in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a print. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it in the "Printed#Book illustrations in color" category? I guess because there isn't a category for free-standing prints? If so, that should be remedied. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, my mistake, sorry. New section created. --Cart (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super! Thanks, Cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter and Ikan Kekek: Sorry about that, hadn't noticed it had been added to a subsection. I had only added it to the main page listing, as I didn't realise bots did subsections now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alsakan (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A high quality restoration I'm sure, but it's worrying that I cannot oppose because the artwork itself is of minimal artistic merit. Is that what we want for FP? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: I mean, if you feel you should oppose, please oppose. I won't be offended, and would much rather have an honest discussion than people holding back because they feel they shouldn't talk about it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: I think you really bring up a fair point that merits discussion on here and so, please feel free to oppose for that reason alone. On second thought, I also have some doubt about this image since I would hesitate to nominate an image of similar artistic merit but hey, I am relatively new here so, I have yet to pinpoint the definite standard for featuring artworks. In any case, if this image passes which it most likely will, you might want to nominate it for delist some time later for the aforementioned reason if you feel strongly about it and want to generate a useful discussion. --Alsakan (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't oppose if restorations are deemed OK for FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: But you clearly have objections to this one that go beyond just it being a restoration, and, as such, I'd prefer you'd oppose. You have objected elsewhere to the artistic merit of the underlying work and its historical inaccuracy, and I think those are sufficient reasons to oppose. In the defense of this image, I have noticed a number of artistic-but-unlikely-to-be-used-on-Wikipedia photographs pass here - I don't wish to call anyone out, so I'll link you some privately if you like - so I somewhat see the bar here being wiggly enough to get this over, but you clearly don't, and if it fails honestly, I'd prefer that to it succeeding dishonestly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic merit is important on Wikipedia FP, but the hurdles are lower here.Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Printed#Other

File:Tübingen - Stiftskirche - Chorraum - Schlussstein mit Madonna mit Kind.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2020 at 20:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Germany
Info Have had my eye on this for a while - a very good and extremely sharp photo of an interesting architectural element. created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice symmetry, beautiful artwork. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 06:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail. I hadn't realised cricket was invented so long ago. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm missing this one ... Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, I think Charles is joking that the red object in the baby Jesus' hand is a cricket ball. (I think it's actually an apple, which is often used as symbolism for Christ as a second Adam - see here.) Cmao20 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, Cmao20, for nominating and all of you for your support. --Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pigeon drinking at the fountain in Vada (Livorno), after the quarantine the animals get closer and are not afraid.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2020 at 07:22:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Columbiformes_(Pigeons_and_Doves)
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by [[User:{{subst:PROPOLI87}}|]] -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PROPOLI87 (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry but the technical quality on this image is far below what is needed to be called one of the best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the technical quality is below what is expected from an FP.--Peulle (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Okay, it didn't seem so bad.PROPOLI87 (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 08:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The technical quality is not great, although I don't think it would preclude it from becoming FP if it was a really good photograph otherwise. But I don't like the composition - for instance the randomly cropped bit of path on the left, the fact that the bottom of the plinth is cut off, and the fact that the subject is so small in the frame. Cmao20 (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info Cmao20, posting an 'Oppose' after a file has been FPX-ed is redundant. The only thing that will do is to postpone the Bot-removal of the file. The Bot will move the file to archive 24 hours after the last edit on the nom page has been made. Hence, I will archive this manually. --Cart (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cart - understood. I did know that but I thought it wouldn't matter to delay an FPX a few hours and that the picture deserved a more thorough critique than just dismissing it by saying that the technical quality is insufficient. It was really a response to PROPOLI87's comment above which seemed to be a request for a more detailed explanation of why this image is not an FP. I won't do it again though. Cmao20 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you. What I understand is that the camera I have cannot aspire to take exceptional photos using zoom. For this I have to get as close as possible to the subject of the photo without using the zoom. And in this case the pigeon seemed to me rather well photographed. I didn't want to cut it at the expense of the fountain, because it seemed beautiful to me. I'll try again. Good morning to you all.P.S. For once I managed to do the job well! :) PROPOLI87 (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baumweißling auf Rotklee.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2020 at 15:16:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
Info created & uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've no idea how it's achieved, but it is impressive. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks like a photo taken in a studio --Wilfredor (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. Cmao20 (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow--Sonya7iv (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 08:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rez-A (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I'm not loving the purple blurry bottom, I would cut it, simply. The butterfly on the flower is nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stellar resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Book cover! Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Detail is crazy but the bottom blurry purple spot is disturbing, I'd at least crop a portion of it Poco a poco (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sweet, delicate. --Camelia (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 19:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning. -- -donald- (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks like a pastel drawing. Wouaw... - Benh (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)

File:Laghi Lasteati.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2020 at 17:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Trentino-Alto Adige
Info created by MattiaMa - uploaded by MattiaMa - nominated by MattiaMa -- MattiaMa (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MattiaMa (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Stunning composition, but the quality isn't there. The sharpness/detail is poor at 100%, and is just barely good enough at 9 MP. If that were the only issue I might support, but additionally there are white patches of overexposure on the rocks at the right. Unfortunately it's just very hard to achieve FP-level technical quality with an iPhone. You're a great photographer, and deserve a camera commensurate with your skills. You can get an entry-level camera such as the Nikon D3500, Canon EOS 2000D, or Sony a6000, all available with lens for under US$500. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per KoH, I'm really torn here. This is actually a really good photograph in terms of composition, it's a lovely scenic view and would be a no-brainer support if the quality were at the standard of even an entry-level DSLR or CSC. But as KoH says the detail from an iPhone just isn't there at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. You have a fine artistic sensibility but need better equipment for FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan --Sonya7iv (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree.--Peulle (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per others. And such a beautiful scene, too ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the others, really a pitty! --Domob (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trekkers along with porters towards Snow Lake, over Biafo Glacier 61Km.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2020 at 18:38:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Pakistan
Info created by Vasiq Eqbal - uploaded by Vasiq Eqbal - nominated by Till Niermann -- Till Niermann (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Till Niermann (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The line of people is a great compositional element. They're well placed and show the mountains towering over them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally I would complain about underexposure here, but it works for me because it emphasizes the contrast between the mountains and people. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. Lots of wow-factor here. Cmao20 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 09:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice composition but under-exposed. Can correct? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator and uploader doesn't have a user page, so I doubt he will even notice this nomination. --Till (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Will revert if you manage to get it corrected. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing composition --Wilfredor (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Epic composition - Benh (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like this image a lot but Charles is right here. Please fix the underexposition if possible. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dont feel it underexposed. Blue is darker in high altitude. --Grtek (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. Too much underexposed – a pity! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The sort of scene I used to envision while listening to Yes's "Siberian Khatru". Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Correcting the exposure would indeed be nice, but thanks to the composition, it’s already amazing as it is. --Aristeas (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome!--Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Epic composition" said by Benh, is the right sentence. Nice! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others - underexposed. --Milseburg (talk) 11:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the past, when I was young, I also went to high mountains. The colors there are different and darker than at 'normal' height. I think that this is somewhat in line with reality.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was there too and there is more brightness, especially when you take off your sunglasses. --Milseburg (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

COVID-19 San Salvatore, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2020 at 20:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Portrait of Silvia Ligi, anesthesiologist doctor
Portrait of Vincenzo Siciliano, intensive care nurse
Portrait of Francesca Palumbo, intensive care nurse
Annalisa Silvestri, anesthesiologist doctor, in a moment of pause
Portrait of Federico Paolin, anesthesiologist doctor
Portrait of Annalisa Silvestri, anesthesiologist doctor

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by Alberto Giuliani - uploaded by Alberto Giuliani - nominated by Camelia.boban -- Camelia (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Camelia (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure about this as a set. These are good portraits, but I find some more interesting than others and it's not clear what unites them (as opposed to other pictures from the relevant category). That said, I'd likely support this one on its own. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the first time I candidated images as featured. I chooses a set, as for me has on "all together" meaning: same place, same profession, same mood. Then I saw the first comments and I thought that choosing a set instead of 6 single nominations was not a great idea and I was there to put the WithDraw template, thinking that maybe the Commons set has a different meaning. But first I took another look to the comments and in that moment yes, I was sure that my initial choice was correct. This is a set, because is the same effort and despair, the same faces tired (after 12-hour schedule without even taking a break to go to the bathroom) and signed by protection dispositives. What unites them is the same topic/theme (part of an unique photoshoot), same hospital and profession, the same painful time, the same story. Less one, even the same genre, portraits. --Camelia (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Does not qualify under the set criteria IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 09:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Worthy idea, but random compostions. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would choose one. Tomer T (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it as a set. --Grtek (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC) Now when the other autors works from this set are in high resolution, it is time to nominate them all together. --Grtek (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support High-quality set of images that could also fit the needs of a printed publication. In 10 years from now, we will deem this even more valuable… --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support What these images lack in wow-factor, the pack in oumph. They hit you right in the feels. Ainali (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing project. --Andrei (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I was actually going to nominate image #9 myself, because I feel it captures the mood so well. I could also go for #10 and #11, but just like Rhododendrites, I feel like the others miss something as a set.--Peulle (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think, the more the better in this case. Numerous photos are showing diversity of faces, without concentrating on one person or one story. --Andrei (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No doubt. --Smial (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would maybe remove Annalisa Silvestri in the corridor from the set as a whole. if it is a little staged it's odd, and if it's a real snapshot it is a different concept than frontal portraits.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH, but I may support 09 if nominated separately. --A.Savin 14:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Significant set.--Mickey83 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not eligible to vote on COM:FPC. --A.Savin 17:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH and Charles --Sonya7iv (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but no criteria is fufilled to nominate these 6 pics as a set. Why not 5 of them or why not adding another one? Poco a poco (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poco a poco Agree with kipping the 5 portraits (as per Alexmar983 and Postcrosser too) and do a separate nomination for n° 09. What do I need to do, just delete number 09 from the this list and the Multiple image template from it? --Camelia (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camelia: have you read the rules for a set nomination? 5 portraits don't fulfill them either. Poco a poco (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support but removing the image of Annalisa Silvestri in the corridor: I think the other could be considered as a set, since they depict a same kind of image (faces tired and signed by protection dispositives after a long day of work), and are very representative of the present situation and of the work of doctors and nurses --Postcrosser (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH and Charles.--Ermell (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a pity! The critics here are right, technically. This nom doesn't really qualify under the terms that define our "sets". But you know what? I don't care this time! These images are outstanding, a truly artistic sequence that one would expect to leaf through in magazines like the British Journal of Photography. That being said, I'd remove 09 - which doesn't really fit - and present it again in an independent nom. It's certainly FP, as well. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Falbisoner, I removed the photo n° 09 from this list and inserted on it the template Withdraw - I don't know if is enough - and I will candidate this photo again. Yes, I read the rules which say that Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set (only pamphlets, puzzles, pendant paintings?) and A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object (related only to other animals?). The examples are a few, is hard to imaginate from the begining of writing a rule, what is not possible to be logically intended as a set. In this case, the photographer intended these foto as an unicum and you can find the photos published as a set on The Atlantic, Stern, Art Tribune, Photography Festival. And the photoshoot was also intended this way when was published by The British Journal of Photography called Exhaustion and emptiness: Faces of those on the frontline. --Camelia (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Camelia.boban: you can't suppress a picture of your nomination just like that, after 9 reviewers supported the set as it is, with all these 6 pictures. Please read the guidelines at the top of this page, in the yellow box, section "Set nominations" -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others said above, this candidature does not qualify under the criteria of a set. The guidelines say: Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist. ⛔️ -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Quite honestly, I'm not sure I'm emotionally able to evaluate these photos as a set, but though I totally get that #9 is dissimilar enough not to be part of a set of portraits of medical personnel showing the lines on their faces from wearing their N95 masks, aside from that, if this is ineligible to be judged as a set, I think that's a real problem, because there's no way we could judge a complete set of portraits of all medical personnel with lines on their faces from wearing N95 masks. I'm inclined to vote for this set just to make a point. I don't think that would be responsible, but I think we may need to reconsider policy on what can constitute a set. How are we going to support documentary pictures properly if they can't be sets? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan, you're saying you're not "emotionally able to evaluate" these photos as a set. You said something similar in this nomination. What's the reason exactly? Also, where's the problem of nominating them individually? This set (or that one) had the same issue. One image per nomination, is it not the way we proceed here usually to review a particular image, taking the time to evaluate it fairly in the light of our standards and personal tastes? There are many more available in the same the series: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15... why this particular set, arbitrarily? Is it the choice of the artist? No. So why excluding the others? -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The artist did make a choice here - by providing only some of the images of his series in high res --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrarily? No, is not arbitrarily, the guidelines say Images of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected. As you can see, is the same quality, but I selected only the high resolution photos from the serie to candidate as FP. --Camelia (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I might not be able to evaluate their quality emotionally is because I live in New York City, which experienced a hell comparable to Lombardy and of course remains under threat from this pandemic, so it's hard for me to have enough objectivity to vote based sufficiently on something other than my emotional reaction to these photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the other nomination you linked was a heroic equestrian statue of a notorious Jew-murderer. I think I explained that there; why did you feel the need to link to it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. I can understand your feeling since as I explained in the other nom I fell the same for a previous portrait of a French politician. But I was wondering the reason here, and now I understand. It reminds me the candidature we had during the Hong Kong protest, when the event was the hottest, nobody fell so comfortable because of the lack of perspective -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I feel that judging photos can be a difficult task, because an emotional reaction to these kinds of photos is desirable, but if I can't get sufficiently beyond that level, I risk judging only with my heart and not my head, so to speak. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per KoH and Charles. - -Karelj (talk) 10:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --PierreSelim (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After this discussion I contacted the photographer asking him if uploading only 6 photos in high resolution was a choice. No, was as an oversight of someone who used for the first time our wiki platform, so he accepted to upload a new version of the other 11 files in HD. Now, the situation changed, the set should contain all the 16 photos, or at least all the portraits (15 photos). My opinion is that continues to be a set as intended by BJP, Faces of the frontline, but, in order to not have a further copy of this discussion, I'm here to understand from you what is the best way to act. I read several opinions, literally stick to the rules or see this situation as an exception we faced with (someone was also talking about reviewing the policies). For this reason I will wait for the natural end of the voting process, to have more thoughts on this. --Camelia (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is time for new nomination with all the pictures "which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set". Yes, it is possible it will be not enough "in accordance with rules" for oponents. I will definitelly support it, even if it will be not in strict accordance with rules. It is clear IAR case for me.--Grtek (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others --Alsakan (talk) 13:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin Falbisoner. --Aristeas (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose though I would support without 09 ... the portraits are great. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 11 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Merfeld, Wildpferdebahn, Dülmener Wildpferde -- 2020 -- 7340.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2020 at 04:54:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Perissodactyla_(Odd-toed_ungulates)
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Better than your last one. The two foals in the middle are cute, but I'm bothered by the out-of-focus pony at the far right which appears to have its head buried in the rear end of the right foal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute but IMO not special enough for a FP. The composition isn't convincing. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose exactly per Baso. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of my favorites of that series of pictures. The selective focus highlights the main subject. Also high educational value (we don't have that many images of wild foals interacting this way). The other horses of that herd provide nice context. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Baso.--Peulle (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one much more than the other one. It's nice to see how they interact with each other. Cmao20 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as this one, the light is not working, and another problem: the biggest animal is totally hidden -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it could work if it were just the two ponies in the foreground. Daniel Case (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Frank --Sonya7iv (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matterhorn and Riffelhorn as seen from Gornergrat, Wallis, Switzerland, 2012 August.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2020 at 00:07:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Switzerland#Valais
Info I was surprised that we only have two FPs of the Matterhorn, one of which is good but quite low-resolution, and the other is a stunning but quite unconvential sunset shot. So I think there's room for this one to be FP too. created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some posterization in the sky. Perhaps it's something that a bit of editing can take care of? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A splendid view. --Aristeas (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ordinary shot of this striking mountain.--Milseburg (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fernando Sor.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2020 at 12:16:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Other portraits
Info created by Rettinghaus - uploaded by Rettinghaus - nominated by Rettinghaus -- Rettinghaus (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rettinghaus (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'll support when this photo is digitally restored to eliminate stray marks and discolorations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tree-climbing lions (Panthera leo).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2020 at 20:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Felidae (Felids)
Info Please read the story behind this image in Tip #28 (page 15) of Issue Two of A Sharp Eye on wildlife photography. I nominated this a couple of years ago, but it had many technical issues. Back then, the Ugandan population of these special lions was about 50, now it is 20-35. So to get five in one tree was fortunate. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The link isn't going past tip 20 for me, but regardless, this is a special photo and would be even if these beautiful lions weren't so sadly rare. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The difference in quality with the original version is night and day. What did you do differently this time around? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I got wrong last time (except lots). One big change is that as it's late morning there was a lot of heat haze which I have denoised selectively between the leaves. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Superbe catch, but you should really do something about your "monet style" NR... - Benh (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose overprocessed. --Ivar (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
moderate support fine with me although NR is a bit overdone. Technically that's a different picture/frame now (compare lion in the middle [1,2]) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, I lost that one. The Commons software decided this was the same image and wouldn't upload it as a new image.Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Neptuul (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan --Andrei (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The background NR looks really a bit disturbing, but the lions are sharp and indeed this is a great shot of such rare animals. Much better than the existing FP (on Wikipedia) of those lions. --Domob (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The problem of light is counterbalanced by the rarity of such a gathering -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Domob. --Aristeas (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support With a composition as incredible like this I would have no problem seeing noise. I really like photos with an acceptable amount of noise, I think there has been an exaggerated phobia-noise. --Wilfredor (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Fin garden vault.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2020 at 11:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality, nice pattern. Tomer T (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Haven't we just had one like this? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the one I remembered, categorized correctly under interiors, whereas this nom. is incorrectly in exteriors. Looks like the same ceiling to me and not as good as the existing FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- sides of this place is open and it's not wall around it. I think its better to be in the exterior. in answer to Charlesjsharp I should say each pictures have special view and pattern and all of them can give the unique perspective to observer.--Amirpashaei (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, Charlesjsharp, we had this pretty similar candidate a few days a go. To me here and there we find the same problem, the most interesting piece of the composition is cropped. Poco a poco (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - you can't take picture of all the pattern in the vault. you should crop but in a way that show good composition in final picture. .you cropped too in this picture--Amirpashaei (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not comparable, I didn't crop the star, you did and please, focus on your picture, that's the one here to be judged. Here I have to Oppose Poco a poco (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        1- we dont have any reason to consider the star as main subject in every picture we want to take of ceiling in qajar kiosk . 2- in this picture and the other one main section (90%) of the star is in the frame and observer can build 10% of it in his mind and this is not a problem. 3- picture have good composition and framing and show other part of ceiling beauties. --Amirpashaei (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ per above, it's great by itself but the other FP is better and I don't think they both need to be promoted. Cmao20 (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support to give it a chance of promotion. I'm not really sure, maybe it's different enough to be FP. Looking through the categories, other authors have successfully nominated images more similar than these. It's a different view, and the very high resolution is quite impressive. Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose composition is weak. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. stunning and high quality. Reza babaeian (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charlesjsharp. -- Karelj (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 08:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as I do when I cannot get the Large Image viewer to work. Daniel Case (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Daniel Case: what's the problem with large image viewer Mr case? i didn't understand. can I do something to solve this problem? or problem is in photography process? your internet speed is low?--Amirpashaei (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info @Amirpashaei: When you nominate a large file it is very useful to also offer a smaller version and/or the original version in sections so that everyone can see and use the file regardless of their computer or internet capacity. Help systems can be down from time to time. Take a look at this file or this file and see how you can present your photo in different versions. Such help will always bring a little extra to a nomination since Commons' goal is to make all images accessible to everyone. --Cart (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: thanks for your useful aid and favor Mrs Carter--Amirpashaei (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: I uploaded 20MP version Mr Case.if other versions needed to upload tell me Mr Case. --Amirpashaei (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural_elements#Other_ceilings

File:Safavid fin garden vault.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2020 at 11:41:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice satisfying composition. Cmao20 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No special image for FP, also composition is weak. -- Karelj (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Karelj: I like to hear weakness of composition to preventing them in future.if I aware to my faults in composition and framing cause improving my photography skills. thanks Mr karel--Amirpashaei (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 08:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rez-A (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain since I cannot see the image at fuller resolution. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Daniel Case: I uploaded 20MP version Mr Case.if other versions needed to upload tell me Mr Case. --Amirpashaei (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural_elements#Other_ceilings

File:View from Miradouro Francisco Alvares Nóbrega on Machico.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2020 at 06:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Portugal
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support All that nice vegetation in the foreground really helps. Someone may complain about some bright areas that are hazy or glary, but that's part of the character of the place, isn't it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Highlights on the buildings/boats are overexposed. Unfortunately, on a sunny day an exposure with an EV of 13 2/3 is bound to blow out some white objects. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the foreground plants, but studying it revealed the sandwich box. Cloning Llez? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for the hint --Llez (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ridgeline is aggressively sharpened, but forgivable at this size. Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 16:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wroclaw - budynek politechniki.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2020 at 06:59:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me, a bit too much of the building is obscured by the trees. The image also looks a bit soft.--Peulle (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed, it would be nice to see more of the building (the mood and composition in general is nice, though). My main objection is that it looks really overprocessed at 100%. And the two blurred people in the front don't help. Sorry. --Domob (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It is a bit soft, but overall good for me. I don't think the composition could be much better unless the photographer had decided to cut the trees down... Cmao20 (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition with the trees. However, the trees on the left are too unsharp, suggesting overaggressive NR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It’s a pity that it’s soft (really looks like NR gone wrong), but the light is so beautiful, and the composition is good for me. --Aristeas (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Domob. The right gable is a real headscratcher in this department. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Domob. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Puelle. --Alsakan (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the texture of the trees, especially toward the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 16:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Overview of Mikulov from Svatý Kopeček 2020 pano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2020 at 13:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Czech Republic
Info all by me. -- T.Bednarz (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- T.Bednarz (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, sorry. Nice composition and view, although e.g. the light is also not outstanding. The picture itself is quite soft for a landscape, and has relatively low resolution compared to other panoramas we see here, though. --Domob (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good for me, yes the light could be better but the composition is nice and there is lots to see. I guess 30mpx is not the highest resolution panorama we've seen here, but it's hardly bad. Cmao20 (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Domob. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High resolution but unappealing light -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dendrobates tinctorius - Karlsruhe Zoo 04.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2020 at 08:01:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Dendrobatidae (Poison Dart Frogs)
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Such a shame that the focus is on the front right leg, not the head/eye. Worth another go. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the front right leg is sharp and also the part above the left eye, why should the part in between, the right eye, not be sharp? --Llez (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is some improvement in sharpening in the recent upload, but I don't feel it is FP sharp. Possibly the whole image is a bit soft (camera blur at 1/200 sec?) and it just looks as if the eye is not in focus? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I take Charles' point, but still good to me. Cmao20 (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Background is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weimar, Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek, 2019-09 CN-03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2020 at 07:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info created & uploaded by Carschten - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good photo. Congratulations, Carschten! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. A small dustspot in the upper right corner, and some remaining minor CA at the windows you may wish to remove on occasion, but still enough for FP as is. --A.Savin 13:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request @Carschten: Could you please fix the purple fringing (indicated)? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done @A.Savin and King of Hearts: new version with slight corrections uploaded. --kaʁstn 20:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Cmao20 (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lion (Panthera leo) male 6y.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2020 at 12:14:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Felidae (Felids)
Info Previous nom had issues on crop, exposure and noise. I hope it is better and suitably magestic now. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The eyes become heavy :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for me Cmao20 (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is it just me or is the lion rolling his eyes? --Alsakan (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, possibly. When we chatted later, he said he'd been posing all afternoon but nobody had turned up. Then I came along and asked him to look this way and that and all he really wanted was another sleep. Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My wife postulated that maybe he was digesting his new lionesses' young

. Daniel Case (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though for my taste, you could still improve the bottom crop by removing some of the dirt, and then remove some of the sky to compensate. But your picture, your choice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alma-Tadema - The Roses of Heliogabalus.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2020 at 06:54:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Groups
Info The Roses of Heliogabalus created by Lawrence Alma-Tadema - uploaded by Alsakan - nominated by Alsakan -- Alsakan (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the finest and most famous examples of British Academic art and the only work by this painter I actually like. The bar for the technical quality of featured historical paintings is much higher here than on Wikipedia and this should have no problem meeting that criteria. -- Alsakan (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Fine detail. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks full of artefacts to me - almost like it's been compressed or upscaled or something. Without metadata I can't really tell.--Peulle (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Peulle. Great painting and great resolution, but too artefact-y for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I missed that. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I agree with you guys' reasons on the standards we should have for FP. Thanks for the feedback. Alsakan (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lady with an Ermine - Leonardo da Vinci - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2020 at 20:04:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Paintings
Info created by Leonardo da Vinci - uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko from Google Art Project - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very great detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone --阿 ^talk 19:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spb Anichkov Palace asv2019-09 img14.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2020 at 18:34:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Concert Hall of the Anichkov Palace, Saint Petersburg ----- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 18:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful interior, beautiful photo. If I may criticise just a little, I somehow wish the shadows were a bit darker. I don't know whether this is actually an HDR, but it looks to me like the kind of photo for which HDR has been just a tiny bit overdone, so that it's a bit too bunched together in the midtones with not enough dark shadows/bright highlights. But this is only a tiny criticism :) (and who knows, it might have looked like that) Cmao20 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's single exposure, not HDR. Thanks --A.Savin 23:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Observing the noise pattern generated because over-sharpening filter and particularly visible at the upper ends --Wilfredor (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good wide-angle interior. Technically fine -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Wifredo. Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2017 Audi FIS Ski Weltcup Garmisch-Partenkirchen Damen - Ragnhild Mowinckel - by 2eight - 8SC9274.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2020 at 11:14:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual snow sports
Info created by 2eight - uploaded by 2eight - nominated by Persia -- ahuR ☘ 11:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ahuR ☘ 11:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
mild support It's a very nice shot and we don't have any alpine skiing FPs, but I do feel like the resolution could be a bit higher. I can't see any metadata so I don't know if that's reasonable criticism or not.--Peulle (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality and size not there and not a great ski-racing picture. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose She's catching air, yes, but that's not enough to make this photo dramatic. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationahuR ☘ 12:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mettingen Die Werkstatt Harald und Slavka Wohlfahrt 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2020 at 11:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Mixed
Info created by J.-H. Janßen - uploaded by J.-H. Janßen - nominated by Persia -- ahuR ☘ 11:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ahuR ☘ 11:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, this doesn't look like an excellent portrait to me. Besides the shadows and lighting, the technical quality doesn't convince, please check at 100% view. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basotxerri --Llez (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The highlights are too bright and the noise is too much.--Peulle (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a great portrait to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above - sorry, a good portrait but not a great or especially creative one for me. Cmao20 (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationahuR ☘ 12:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nebel Schienen Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2020 at 14:27:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Rail_tracks
Info created by DerMische - uploaded by DerMische - nominated by Domob -- Domob (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a spherical panorama and should be viewed using the panorama viewer link on the page. --Domob (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This panorama has an incredible mood to me, apart from being technically flawless. It is essentially what I wanted to create myself for some time now but haven't managed quite yet. --Domob (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, this is tremendous. Lots of fun to look at in the 360 viewer - very atmospheric. Cmao20 (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support certainly not tremendous nor technically flawless (bottom gap filling is blurry) but very good yes. And not so many spherical pano over here. - Benh (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent atmosphere, this is one of my favorite types of photos and ready to be seen by VR. I have the equipment to do it and I know it is complicated. --Wilfredor (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not happy with the camera position because I hate Fallopia japonica next to it on one side, but otherwise this is very good and deserves the star --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain because as technically excellent as this, I cannot bring myself to support an FP taken on what appear to be actively used railroad tracks. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Transport#Rail_tracks

File:Restanten voormalige rioolwaterzuiveringsinstallatie in Broek bij Joure. 01-06-2020 (d.j.b.) 10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2020 at 15:43:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Other Detail of building.
Info Remnants of the former sewage water treatment plant on the Tramwei at the Trambrug in Broek near Joure. Detail of the remains of the iron pipe system. Remnant of a round robust pipe in contrast to the angular concrete construction. From a bygone era.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Simply beautiful colors, I like the abstract composition of bringing decay and the texture of a rusty drain, there is an inert beauty in the hidden message of a non-existent contamination of a land without humans --Wilfredor (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe a useful VI, but I'm not seeing anything particularly great about the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree wilfredor and great texture. Seven Pandas (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and because a way to compensate the lack of wow would be a crispy sharpness, which isn't there, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I appreciate the charm of decay. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per poco and Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1. --Peulle (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco and Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Wilfredor too, and I'm not seeing a problem with sharpness. Cmao20 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per wilfredor --Sonya7iv (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco. Also not enough historical or architectural value. --Alsakan (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me as abstract art ... the orange/black/gray/white combo reminds me of some painter in particular, though I can't think who right now (Pollock maybe?) Very Ash Can School Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gemeiner Bläuling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2020 at 00:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lycaenidae (Blues, coppers and hairstreaks)
Info Another brilliant and high-resolution butterfly from Sven Damerow. I really like the composition, and the image quality at pixel level is superb for a >40mpx macro shot. created by Sven Damerow - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great shot and fine colours (over-saturated?). Needs a bit of work Sven Damerow on many small focus-stacking errors and the image description Cmao20 should mention it is focus stacked. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, the "focus-stacked image" template is now added to the image page. Cmao20 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and great compo --Poco a poco (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it possible to identify the species and common name of the flower? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that it's very likely Gaillardia pulchella, but I'm no expert. Cmao20 (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can we resolve this? I'd like for us to be able to specify it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~--Ermell (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ermell but you have already voted above. Cmao20 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Lycaenidae (Blues, coppers and hairstreaks)

File:Raiyani Muharramah Gendang beleq DSCF8502a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2020 at 16:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by RaiyaniM - uploaded by RaiyaniM - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting image and deservedly won an award in Wiki Loves Folklore, but the technical manipulation is not very good. It looks like the background on the right has been artificially blurred, but not very well - if you look around the outline of the man in the foreground, there are areas of background that haven't been blurred properly. It's very noticeable at full-res and I think an FP should be a bit more carefully processed. Cmao20 (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird artifacts near the lower right corner and right margin. Therefore, regardless of anything else, it cannot be reasonably considered for FP or QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, the dancer also has not enough space in the frame which badly contrasts with the vibe of the event. --Andrei (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Danu Widjajanto (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:משפחה בעין עבדת.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2020 at 09:57:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Israel
Info created & uploaded by Hanan epstein - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the people Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The people are OK with me, but though this is a great motif, I think this is just too small for a landscape FP, nowadays. Maybe if it were twice as big. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful, but obviously downsampled, and there is some colour noise visible even at this small size. I like it but I don't think it quite meets the quality of a landscape FP in 2020. Cmao20 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berchtesgaden 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2020 at 11:57:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info created & uploaded by Dmytro Balkhovitin - nominated by Ivar (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 11:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it tilted (see the house and the flagpole)? --Llez (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Llez: how about now? --Ivar (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivar It was still tilted, I made an additional correction, now the roof is horizontal. Do you agree (if not you are free to reset)? --Llez (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with all versions. --Ivar (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo. Cmao20 (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just gorgeous! A fairytalescape! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 21:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great composition, light and mood! --Domob (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huh --Podzemnik (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support great colours. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 09:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 19:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good quality, but the description is poor. From an FP, I expect more information about what exactly can be seen in the picture. None of the mountains are labeled. --Milseburg (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support wouaw :) - Benh (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erinaceus roumanicus 2020 G2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2020 at 20:34:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Erinaceidae (Hedgehogs)
Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good quality but maybe the DoF is a bit shallow for such a common species. Cmao20 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know if it's a captive animal, but it is a nice composition. Excellent if it is wild (Should mention on description if so). Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. Photo taken in the wild. This young hedgehog was not at all timid. I took this picture from a distance of about 1.5 meters, lying on the ground -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but geocode would be good. --A.Savin 11:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support very cute--Andrei (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals#Family : Erinaceidae (Hedgehogs)

File:Großer Blaupfeil - Weibchen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2020 at 12:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Libellulidae_(Skimmers)
Info created & uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Ivar (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The appendages are blurred which is usually a no-no for FP, but the rest is really nice. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one, the detail on the wings is really impressive. Cmao20 (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the small water droplets --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detail on the upper part makes the blurred bottom quite forgivable. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Ferrer (talk • contribs)
Support Impressive at full resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family_:_Libellulidae_(Skimmers)

File:Mademoiselle Maupin de l'Opéra (Julie d'Aubigny).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2020 at 05:46:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Other portraits (Probably? It doesn't fit into any of the categories under Non-photographic media/People)
Info Anonymous, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful print. I just read the Wikipedia article about her. What a sad end to such an interesting life and successful career! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Gallery fixed. Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women is only for photos of people. The gallery sections are not static, they can be altered or expanded according to the needs of images promoted. This nom brought to light a bad name for one of the headings in the non-photographic portrait gallery, now fixed. --Cart (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panoramic view of Caracas, Venezuela 1900 restored version.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2020 at 14:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by Juan José Benzo - uploaded and nominated by -- Wilfredor (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spire is a little too close to the top edge. Could you create some more sky? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that this weekend. Thanks for your feedback --Wilfredor (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second. KoH, you want a historical photo altered by adding fake sky to it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original clearly had tears at the top, so some fake sky has already been added. Since this is a print, I wouldn't be surprised if the original negative had a bit more on all sides. We don't want to change the original artistic intent of the photographer, but there likely was more at the top when they took the photo. I don't need a lot, just a tiny hair more at the top. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way we can see the negative? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question How can this photo be a QI (nominated by Wilfredor and promoted by Ermell) when the original was not made by a Commons photographer? I don't recall seeing other restorations at QIC. --Cart (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There have been. Just as a reproduction of a painting can be a QI if the reproduction is done by a Commoner, so can a scan (restored or not) of a historic photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that a photo or scan of a painting or old photo made by a Commoner can be a QI, but here the scan was made by the Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs division and not Wilfredor, if I'm reading the source right. --Cart (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, it shouldn't be a QI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should allow QIs as long as a Commoner has done significant work. The goal is to reward effort by community members, and Wilfredor has clearly spent way more time on this image than most people spend on their self-photographed QIs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green-crowned brilliant (Heliodoxa jacula henryi) female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2020 at 07:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Trochilidae (Hummingbirds)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 13:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --Wilfredor (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Snowstorm near Ogoy island.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2020 at 14:28:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Siberian_Federal_District
Info Lake Baikal in winter. Snowstorm near Ogoy island. Created by Sergey Pesterev - uploaded by Sergey Pesterev - nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you do some noise reduction please? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the grain - it is a 36MP image. Possibly didn't need the sharpening you applied, as that's not what the image is about. -- Colin (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noise is fine to me, we must leave aside the phobic noise that ends up eliminating information --Wilfredor (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the noise afraid of?

Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Colin, noise is IMO acceptable on a photo this size. Lovely view. Cmao20 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support To my eyes and in context, that looks like snow, not noise. If some of it's noise, so what? Excellent photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A category for snowstorms should probably be added. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alsakan (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wooooow... and I was just talking about going to Baikal lake at winter time... - Benh (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But please, per KoH the image could be much better with some adjustments of denoising/sharpening --Poco a poco (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please let me know if you reprocess adjusting sharpening and denoising Sergey Pesterev. Otherwise nice. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done I made some denoising and sharpening. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the best quality at full size, but definitely a great scenery and a good composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has its faults, yes, but I love that it looks like a Yes cover ... sort of a bit of Drama meets Relayer. Daniel Case (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 18:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Camelia (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile and Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Soltan salt lake iran.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2020 at 14:26:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Cmao20 (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've enjoyed the photos I've seen from this series. Perhaps this one is the best. Solid, beautiful FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support super Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Ferrer (talk • contribs)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Camelia (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:神龍蘭亭序全.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2020 at 15:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Science#Text
Info created by Feng Chengsu (馮承素) - uploaded by Asoer - nominated by Larryasou -- Larryasou (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The best calligraphy, please enjoy!-- Larryasou (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 出色! High quality scan, nothing to complain about!--阿 ^talk 19:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good--Andrei (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Question Is this really a science text? I think it's in the wrong gallery. This should be in a calligraphy gallery. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: So it does, shall we create a new category? Larryasou (talk) 15:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anemone hupehensis var. japonica-bloom-stamen+petal PNr°0600.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2020 at 04:25:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info created uploaded and nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- D-Kuru (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, not close to FP composition or technical quality. Can I suggest that you put images through QI first. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not one of the finest images on Wikimedia Commons, sorry. At least the crop and the lighting doesn't convince me, sharpness could be possible better. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture but sorry, I don't think the sharpness matches up to the best flower photos on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wroclaw- Uniwersytet i Kosciol Uniwersytecki.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2020 at 22:56:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant form and colors. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find! The pale blues and purples make for a lovely mood. Cmao20 (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be a bit sharper --Llez (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Llez -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question too purple? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that color occurs sometimes. --Cart (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may do, but the question is fair and you are in no position to say 'no'. You cannot seek to deny the validity of my question by referencing an online jpg imageǃ I've no issue with your shot and you were there. The lighthouse image may well have genuine colours, but it had some post-prosessing - see the halo around the lighthouse. And if it is genuine (I've no reason to doubt it), it doesn't mean this nomination is. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amending: No I don't think so, that color occurs sometimes. I prefer to trust the judgment of the author on this. --Cart (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't understand this discussion. There's only a slight purple in the sky, real landscape scenes at sunrise can be much, much more colorful than this one. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like any attempt to put a thumb on what "real" WB is at dusk or dawn is bound to be futile. Our eyes are basically on two different auto WB settings for day and night, and doesn't adapt instantaneously during a period of change such as the blue hour, so "matching what our eyes see" isn't very well-defined. I've tried putting the WB eyedropper on a white surface in some of my blue hour photos before and it turned the whole scene a sickly green, so I don't think we can use that as an objective standard. Ultimately there is no objectively correct WB, and everyone is free to come to their conclusions as to what looks reasonable. At my own Portland FPC I initially resisted, but when three people (including you) complained about the WB I figured they must be right and reprocessed the image. Unless one is intentionally going for an artistic statement that could be polarizing, I think taking the median opinion of the community works well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 18:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vitreolina philippi 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2020 at 05:49:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family_:_Eulimidae
Info This shell, which is only 2.7 mm long, is completely translucent, so that one can study its interior structure without X-raying or destroying the shell; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2.7 mm long! Amazing! This is the best photo of a >1-cm shell I think I've seen from you, and it's the smallest! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm convinced that the lens you use for this tiny shells is not the suitable technical option, otherwise your high quality standard Poco a poco (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Info For such small shells I don't use a normal camera but a Hertel & Reuss stereo microscope in combination with an UCMOS14000KPA (see Metadata). What would you recommend instead? --Llez (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm jealous of your shell collection - they are so beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never saw this sort of shell, apart from glass casting workshops :-) Basile Morin (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine 4 me.--Palauenc05 (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support These in particular look like something out of a sci-fi movie. I actually think it works better with less sharpness. Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wiesenschaumkraut (Cardamine pratensis)-20200416-RM-095356.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2020 at 07:04:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Brassicaceae
Info Meadow cuckooflower in the Hain area in Bamberg. Focus stack from 18 frames.. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice composiiton and quality. Three small focus-stacking errors to touch up (see note) Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question This is such a great image with excellent lighting, can you not correct the small errors Ermell? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info Dear Charles, with the best will in the world, I cannot detect any serious mistakes. If I take a closer look at the picture I could certainly continue working but the picture would certainly not get any better. Thank you for your feedback.--Ermell (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Charles has a sharp eye, but as far as I'm concerned, this is great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info Bitte versuchen Sie, den richtigen Galerie Abschnitt zu finden, und schreiben Sie auch den gesamten Namen des Abschnitts, da der Bot den Abschnitt sonst nicht finden kann. Hinweis: Wenn Sie die Nominierung erstellt haben, klicken Sie auf den Link für die Galerie und sehen Sie, wohin Sie gelangen. Wenn Sie es richtig gemacht haben, werden Sie zum richtigen Abschnitt weitergeleitet. Wenn nicht, korrigieren Sie bitte den Link. Für den Link schreiben Sie den Namen der Galerieseite, #, und kopieren die Überschrift aus dem Abschnitt. Das ist alles, und ich habe es noch einmal für Sie behoben. --Cart (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice, perfect lighting. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again a very good focus stack. Cmao20 (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special lighting here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Then the detail of the spider's web is wonderful --Camelia (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, that's a flower shot I can support! --El Grafo (talk) 12:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, especially the light. --Aristeas (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bärenschützklamm-20110926-RM-105957.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2020 at 08:36:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria#Styria
Info created & uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Striking place, but the sharpness is underwhelming to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose foreground steps Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1/60s is not a great choice of shutter speed for a waterfall, making it look choppy. Either it should be 1/250s or faster to freeze the individual droplets, or it should be 1/15s or slower to produce a smoother effect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like the composition but King of Hearts is right and the shadows aren't well recovered. It's a contrasty situation so bracketing or HDR are necessary. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikiearth-Taman Nasional Danau Sentarum Kalimantan Barat 4229.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2020 at 16:23:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Indonesia
Info created by RaiyaniM - uploaded by RaiyaniM - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful scene but a little bit oversaturated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, yes, it does look a bit oversaturated. The resolution is also on the low side, but I think I could support if the saturation could be decreased. Cmao20 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment downsampled RaiyaniM? Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated. Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Danu Widjajanto (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:PK Chaukhandi Necropolis near Karachi asv2020-02 img07.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2020 at 13:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Pakistan
Info A mausoleum at the Chaukhandi Necropolis, Sindh ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid work. Cmao20 (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality and good colors. My minor nitpicky note is that a little more sky at the top would make it even better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good travel photography, in the sense that I think you captured the feel of the place and now I want to go there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#Pakistan

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Fulda, Schlossgarten, 2019-10 CN-08.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2020 at 22:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info IMO a really striking and satisfying composition - hopefully you'll agree. created by Carschten - uploaded by Carschten - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Would be better if the fountain stream were symmetric, but you can't control the wind... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Carschten, Cmao20 could you please clone out post and cord in the lower left corner? --Basotxerri (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Basotxerri: Done I tried to clone it out. --kaʁstn 13:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Support now. --Basotxerri (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose To me it would look better with blue sky and full sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this photo, but I'm not overwhelmed by it. The building and especially the top of it could be sharper, I'd like a little more room on top, and the light and clouds could be nicer and more interesting. The motif is worth a greater representation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:16, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 18:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Usaba Dangsil Karangasem.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2020 at 19:26:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Giri Wijayanto - uploaded by Giri Wijayanto - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice but it looks a little bit overprocesed too me - too much saturation and probably too much 'clarity.' Cmao20 (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Danu Widjajanto (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Stone Garden Sirjan, Iran.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2020 at 18:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Iran
Info created by Morteza salehi70 - uploaded by Morteza salehi70 - nominated by Persia -- ahuR ☘ 18:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ahuR ☘ 18:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Spooky place and nice atmosphere but small picture. The Metadata don't include any information about the camera, but I find it hard to believe that a camera in 2016 wouldn't have been able to take a larger photo. Morteza salehi70, if you'd like to come back to Commons and upload a full-sized version of this picture, we might be able to promote it. I don't see this being promoted. Maybe as a VI, if nominated to VIC in the appropriate scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose great shot, but small, over-sharpened and without meta data. All fixable, though ... --El Grafo (talk) 12:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) in flight.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2020 at 13:33:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Cathartes
Info This guy has been very busy demonstrating the two-metre rule for social distancing. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 (but too late). Seems a non-controversial nomination, though. Closing it now -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love your description! Great photo. Cmao20 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:اعجاز رنگها.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2020 at 18:03:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing_people
Info created by Yare zaman2000 - uploaded by Yare zaman2000 - nominated by Persia -- ahuR ☘ 18:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ahuR ☘ 18:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You might expect a devotional book, but I think she's reading the Chinese language Lonely Planet guide to Iranǃ Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Charles is right, that's definitely a Lonely Planet guide! I like the shot, but I think that somewhat damages the authenticity of it. Cmao20 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question What's inauthentic about that? It's a tourist reading a travel guide in a great attraction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought miracle implied a religious meaning. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the relevance of a miracle? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image file name. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Farsi. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google, the title is "Miracle of colors" or "Miraculous colors". I don't see that as having a specific religious meaning, rather a poetic way of describing great colors made by the light through a stained glass window. --Cart (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek, I see your point. It’s just that to me, such a clearly religious location, with all the majestic colours from the stained glass, together with a lady wearing a veil, seems to imply an image of religious devotion. When I saw this pic at first, that’s what I assumed it would be. A tourist reading a travel guide is a bit of a letdown in comparison. Cmao20 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good composition and light anyway --Wilfredor (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine with me. Lovely compo. - Benh (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose questionable encyclopaedic value because of the fact that she is reading a travel guide instead of a scripture. --Danu Widjajanto (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, this isn't FPC on Wikipedia. Second, there's know way to know what photo might be used on Wikipedia. Third, we have other sister sites that might use it. Could you imagine it on https://zh.wikivoyage.org? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you please add english description and geolocation? --Grtek (talk) 09:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Grtek (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's a great picture regardless of what kind of book she is reading. If she had been reading some religious book, voters would probably protest that the photo was an invasion of her practicing religion. And I +1 Ikan's comment above; what a pic for a Wiki travel guide! --Cart (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cart. --El Grafo (talk) 12:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wilfredor and Benh. --Aristeas (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Sharpness could be a little bit better and EXIF data would be nice. --XRay ^talk 04:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 12:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2 dome in one frame Fin garden.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2020 at 13:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please keep the exif information in your file. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how should I add exif picture to metadata Mr Wilfredor.if there is a way for that I happy to learn it. thanks.--Amirpashaei (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirpashaei: Sorry for the delay, this could be in the raw development process, some options in lightroom or Photoshop enable the default export of exif information. --Wilfredor (talk) 17:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: thanks for your kind Mr wilfredor . I'll see it.--Amirpashaei (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Can we have some variety please? We already have two FPs File:Fin garden ceiling.jpg and File:Fin garden vault.jpg. You won’t find them in the chosen FP category for this nom as they were classified in Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements. This needs to be sorted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. I supported your first nom of this ceiling and weakly supported the second, but three FPs of very similar views is really getting a bit silly. I get why you've taken three different photos, but I really don't think all three should be considered the finest on Commons. Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: , *@Peulle: , *@Cmao20: I didn't know FP role of multiple photos of a place. Although this picture contain other dome of qajar kiosk. is this matter or if there are two different dome in one place we should consider on of them? I thought this place is important for Registering at historical heritage of UNESCO.--Amirpashaei (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the picture is important for documenting a fascinating heritage site. But it's not really surprising that when you nominate three very similar photos, reviewers will get bored of them. It's not really a firm FP rule that there can't be multiple photos of one place, it's just that FP is for the absolute best on Commons, so it would be better just to select the one you think is best and nominate that one. If you had a photo focussing entirely on the second dome - so like this but centered on the other dome - then that would be different, and I think I'd vote for it. But this one is IMO a too similar view to the other two. Cmao20 (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @Cmao20: Thanks for your useful speeches and your favor. --Amirpashaei (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 18:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Amirpashaei (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sagir Ahmed or Dabdabe Falls.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2020 at 16:00:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created by Ashwin Geet Dsa - uploaded by Ashwin Geet Dsa - nominated by Ashwin Geet Dsa -- Ashwin Geet Dsa (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ashwin Geet Dsa (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral At the bottom of the waterfall there is a strong chromatic aberration. Additionally you could check the white balance that seems a little yellowish (or maybe it was due to natural light) --Wilfredor (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wouldn't call the CA strong to be honest. Not technically perfect, but a nice scene, somehow conveys the oppressive heat of the jungle. Cmao20 (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found the jungle cool and moist in Malaysia back in the 70s. It was outside the jungle that it was hot. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Wilfredor. Looks like the WB is off. Maybe the tripod stood a bit shaky, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love the photo but unless there was some imminent storm that gave a yellowish tint to everything (it happens), the WB needs to be corrected. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much tension at the top and bottom. The top of the waterfall is too close to the top edge, and the two narrow streams at the bottom have too much going on instead of something more relaxing like silky falls or a wide pool of water. I feel like this scene would work much better as a vertical composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with KoH -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tree marigold (reverse).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2020 at 02:46:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
Info all by -- Antan O 02:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Antan O 02:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This angle isn't working for me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nor the cut out background Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the angle but I think the cut out background needs more work if that's the approach you want to go for - look at some of the rough edges where the background meets the flower. Plus I think the contrast with a pitch-black background is not very aesthetic tbh. Cmao20 (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Light, Lundy, June 2011.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2020 at 23:44:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#United Kingdom
Info The Old Light lighthouse in Lundy, Devon, England. A good-quality and striking composition of a beautiful lighthouse, which was constructed in 1819. I actually think the people add to the composition as they provide a counterpoint and give a sense of scale. created by MichaelMaggs - uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically average. The presentation is unusual, but not outstanding. I find the people disturbing for the Lighthouse as the main subject. --Milseburg (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. It's good, but not amazing.--Peulle (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Hello picture?" they seem to wait. And harsh light -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special. Probably heaps of pictures of this subject taken similarly can be found elsewhere. - Benh (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Alsakan (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Doesn't look like this one is going anywhere unfortunately. A shame - it reminded me of this classic POTY. Cmao20 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boulevard des Italiens zu Paris - Rijksmuseum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2020 at 18:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Printed
Info created by Jos. Scholz - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral En regardant la photo originale, je considère que certains traits noirs (comme ceux de la construction au milieu de l'image) sont noirs, cependant, maintenant ils apparaissent bleutés dans cette nouvelle version. Merci --Wilfredor (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Restoration too extreme Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems that the original shows different stages of yellowing in different areas (probably due to framing/matting). One can argue about whether or not an attempt to restore this is a good idea. I could see myself supporting either. But in this case, the yellowing was only parially removed and the result looks quite awkward to me. So restoration was either too agressive ot not agressive enough. --El Grafo (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaveri by Dubare Forest.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2020 at 16:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created by Ashwin Geet Dsa - uploaded by Ashwin Geet Dsa - nominated by Ashwin Geet Dsa -- Ashwin Geet Dsa (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ashwin Geet Dsa (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a lot of water and not very sharp.--Ermell (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty view but I don't think the composition is very good for FP. There's just a big expanse of water in the foreground and nothing to offer any real tension and dynamism. Cmao20 (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I get it. Very good form. The ripples and reflections in the water provide dynamism and the rest is well-balanced. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice outdoor scene but sharpness could be better, maybe too much shadow, too. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too ordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mengerschwamm leuchtend OpenCL HQ 10K 20200604.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2020 at 11:06:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

$Example of fractal art: A mysteriously glowing Menger sponge as example of fractal art$

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Other
Info A mysteriously glowing Menger sponge as example of fractal art created by PantheraLeo1359531 - uploaded by PantheraLeo1359531 - nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer a different color scheme, maybe a bit more vibrant and not so dark on the front face. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per King. Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qajar kiosk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2020 at 14:22:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info created by Amirpashaei - uploaded by Amirpashaei - nominated by Amirpashaei -- Amirpashaei (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amirpashaei (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am disturbed by the large section of nearly white sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view, but per KoH is there any chance of recovering any highlight detail from that nearly-white section of sky? Probably best done from RAW, if it's possible. Cmao20 (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sky and reflection of sky don't work. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very chaotic composition. Daniel Case (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 18:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Charlesjsharp: ,@King of Hearts: ,@Cmao20: , I fixed the sky and tried to uploading over 30 times with uploading on wikimedia server but I didn't success.uploading the picture on my site was very quick in first attempt in this link: http://pashaei.studio/E-(11)-new.jpg. I requested to adding my site in Domains whitelisted for upload_by_url https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload_tools/wgCopyUploadsDomains. I will upload fixed version as soon as possible.--Amirpashaei (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Hi Mrs carter. Can I put this picture "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:E-(11)-new.jpg" as new version of this picture? (Qajar kiosk.jpg)

I dont have any problems with using upload wizard for uploading my pictures. but if I want to replace a new version picture by using this method ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload ) i can't success and error shown in every try. I can't use Source URL upload because my site isn't in whitelisted URL. can I try other way to upload a picture as new version?--Amirpashaei (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Moved it for you. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts: Thanks alot for your favor dear king of heart--Amirpashaei (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: ,@Daniel Case: ,@Cmao20: ,@Andrew J.Kurbiko: I fixed the sky. with King_of_Hearts favor you can see new version and judge.thanks for your feedback.--Amirpashaei (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't approve of painting in blue sky, particularly if you don't bother to do it between the leaves of the tree.Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still oppose; my objection wasn't the color of the sky so much as that there's so many things competing to be the subject of the image that the viewer doesn't really know what the subject is. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't paint the sky, I captured 5 pictures with 5 different exposure and I replaced the sky with raw files but with the best try I success to this level. because of tree and space of between tree branch this work is very hard. I can replace the tree section from dark picture but it's very hard and taking time and fixing the boundary of branch and sky is near to impossible.--Amirpashaei (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)File:Fin Garden Kushak.jpg[reply]

Sorry, that's what I call painting although you could have used HDR. But we already have File:Fin Garden Kushak.jpg as an FP. Why do we need another? Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no problem Mr Charlesjsharp. I agree the HDR process in this picture isn't great but nominated as featured picture because this picture taken from different angle from this kiosk and this picture shown another detail and painting.--Amirpashaei (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Charles that this is not a very different picture from the other one. Also, if you didn't think the photo was great, why would you nominate it to be "one of the finest images", which is what FP is supposed to be? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schulterbachtal Löwenzahn Samenstand-20200517-RM-111527.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2020 at 16:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Cichorioideae
Info Another magnificent Ermell focus stack. We have one other FP here of a dandelion seedhead, but it can't compete with this one in showing the fine detail of the filaments. created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you check top half - seems very soft. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cmao20 Andrei Charlesjsharp some changes done as suggested. Thanks for the reviews.--Ermell (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks, much better Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hockei's 2017 FP remains a great photo on its own terms, though, with all those wonderful droplets. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I would still vote for it today, but this one adds something new. Cmao20 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ermell, how did you make the focus stacking photography in the nature, was there now wind blowing and shaking the flower? -- -donald- (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info You have to wait for some calm and start several attempts. The software can also align the images.--Ermell (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Axel ^(talk) 23:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yesss. --Camelia (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Cichorioideae

File:Gajah sumatera.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2020 at 00:17:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Proboscidea_(Elephants)
Info created by Ridwansgh - uploaded by Ridwansgh - nominated by Labdajiwa -- Labdajiwa (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Labdajiwa (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark for me, sorry. Also a bit lacking in wow factor.--Peulle (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but not great. For FP, the sharpness should be greater at larger sizes. I'd suggest nominating this at COM:QIC, where I'd fully expect it to pass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice picture and IMO a good QI. I think I would vote in favour were it not for the fact that the elephant's trunk is not in focus. Cmao20 (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rather unfortunate lighting with both eyes in the shadows --El Grafo (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing light -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:Gemsbok (Oryx gazella) male.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2020 at 19:44:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Bovidae (Bovids)
Info There is an argument for delisting this current FP. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Zcebeci (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Quality is good and the subject interesting but to me it looks too static, kind of an unnatural posing position Poco a poco (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jardín del Príncipe, Mahan, Irán, 2016-09-22, DD 21.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2020 at 17:16:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Iran
Info Entrance to the Shazdeh Garden (meaning the Prince`s Garden in Mahan), a historical garden near Mahan, Iran. The 5.5 hectares big garden was built for Mohammad Hassan Khan Sardari Iravani ca. 1850 and was entirely remodeled and extended around 1870 during the eleven years of his governorship in the Qajar dynasty. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and quality, but I would reduce the exposure value by half a stop in RAW if possible. Cmao20 (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cmao20 Done Poco a poco (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great - a real improvement. Cmao20 (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and please don't clone out the plastic bottle or the pile of bricks. So often, environmental pollution is cloned out of FP nominees by demand, but it's an ever-present feature of views, nowadays, and the bricks are part of the ongoing work of restoring an old (though in this case, not so very old) monument. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ahuR ☘ 18:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lille Lungegårdsvannet, Bergen, Noruega, 2019-09-08, DD 58-64 PAN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2020 at 17:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Norway
Info Panoramic view of Lille Lungegårdsvannet, a small 5 acres (0.020 km²) lake in the centre of the city of Bergen, Norway. The octagonal lake is a natural lake that was historically connected to the nearby Store Lungegårdsvannet bay via a short strait, but the strait was filled in 1926. Today the lake is located in a park in the city centre. There is a large decorative fountain located in the central part of the lake. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ultrawide panoramas rarely make me go "wow", but this one just did. Very nice! P.S. If I were you I would clone out the distracting leaves at the far left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KoH: leaves removed Poco a poco (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice panorama but I think I can see a stitching error (see note). Cmao20 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cmao20: if you refer to the steps of the beton border of the lake it isn't a stitching issue, I checked the original frames. --Poco a poco (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fair enough. Cmao20 (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think I'd prefer a composition that cropped everything to the left and right of the hill, but at full size, it's totally fine to see everything. I guess this is a cylindrical projection, and if so, that should be stated. I marked a dark spot for you to look at it and see what it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: I usually leave it open to Adobe Lightroom to decide the type of projection. It did go for a spherical projection, as I was curious about the result with cylindrical projection (I'd have also affirmed that it was indeed a cylindrical projection) I tried it and I do actually prefer the result with cylindrical projection although the difference is minor.

I added the type of the projection in the description first but opted for adding that information to the panorama template (that parameter was not supported, so I introduced it). I think that spot is better to describe the type of projection as for most people that information is not essential. --Poco a poco (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry, but I'm not wowed by this (midday lighting). --Ivar (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 12:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:خانه زینت الملوک.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2020 at 09:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: IRAN
Info created by Mostafameraji - uploaded by Mostafameraji - nominated by Persia -- ahuR ☘ 09:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ahuR ☘ 09:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird, distorted projection, strong chromatic aberration on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place, but dull light and per Ikan Kekek.--Cayambe (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavy distortion, not even a QI in my book.--Peulle (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as per above. --Milseburg (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Longsheng Rice Terraces November 2017 023.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2020 at 04:07:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#China
Info A village of Yao people in Guangxi, China, viewed from a gondola lift -- all by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very hazy and not a great composition to me. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnosis and Ikan Kekek: Improved the colors and contrast slightly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it quite a lot, it's a dramatic and evocative view. Cmao20 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lower part is improved and probably the middle, too, but the rest of my remarks stand. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, not well balanced, empty right corner --Andrei (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnosis, Ikan Kekek, Cmao20, and Andrew J.Kurbiko: I did a 4:3 crop which should make the composition more focused. I liked the foliage and details on the right side, but after careful consideration I have concluded that it doesn't really contribute to the composition, so I have removed it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Big improvement to the composition, IMO. I'll live with it for a while and may remove my opposing vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, I'm still finding it too hazy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hazy, dull light and colors in the background -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barisan Penari Bali.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2020 at 06:59:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Freeind santosa - uploaded by Freeind santosa - nominated by Dimas Laksani -- Dimas Laksani (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dimas Laksani (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor technical quality. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise --Llez (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very nice image at small size, but the quality is not good enough at full resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bernardo Bellotto - View of Warsaw from the Royal Castle - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2020 at 15:41:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Towns
Info created by Bernardo Bellotto - uploaded by Artinpl - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super resolution and beautiful painting. Cmao20 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent rendition.--Peulle (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info The castle and the old town of Warsaw were destroyed during the WW2. Reconstruction was made using Bernardo Bellotto's paintings because they were the best available documentation of the city landscape. Warsaw Old Town is a UNESCO site as "an outstanding example of a near-total reconstruction of a span of history covering the 13th to the 20th century". --Andrei (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support so clear Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Covid-19 San Salvatore 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2020 at 19:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by Alberto Giuliani - uploaded by Alberto Giuliani - ~~nominated by Camelia.boban -- Camelia (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)~~ - nominated (taken over) by User:Andrew J.Kurbiko --Andrei (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Camelia (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Moving, and I think also a very good portrait in general. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan --Andrei (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but as good and moving these noms are, you are only allowed two noms at a time, like I told you before on the FPC talk page. Rules are rules, I'm surprised no one else noticed this. You can re-nominate this one later if you like, or someone else who has a spot free can take over this nom from you and remove the FPD tag. --Cart (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: My Da Vinci painting has "unconfirmed support" right now. Can we count it as a free spot? --Andrei (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei: Yep, that works fine. Thanks for stepping in and helping. You have to write here that you take over the nom, strike Camelia's name and write your own as nominator when you remove the FPD template. --Cart (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Andrei (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose my eyes are drawn to the highly distracting window at the top, not the person. Seven Pandas (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Timely, but poorly composed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----ahuR ☘ 12:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed an awkward crop, too much cropped at bottom and too much shown at top Poco a poco (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a fan of the composition Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best of these for me - not a great fan of the crop. A tragic picture, but IMO not quite a great one. Cmao20 (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Alsakan (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1--Peulle (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the upper part is cut off, the photo is meaningless, knowing that she is in a hospital is important. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My office looks the same way and it isn't a hospital. I could live with the window if the legs were not cut off Poco a poco (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactely, for me, that window is as important as the figure. --Camelia (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gnosis (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition is unfavorable --Milseburg (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The window is a distraction, yes, but her face says it all. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, per above. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 12:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Covid-19 San Salvatore 09.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2020 at 19:51:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
Info created by Alberto Giuliani - uploaded by Alberto Giuliani - nominated by Camelia.boban -- Camelia (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Camelia (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very powerful photo --Andrei (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Her posture almost suggests a prayer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop is too tight and subject too far to the right. a better composition would have been easily attainable. Seven Pandas (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Timely, but not a compelling composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support very powerful indeed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----ahuR ☘ 12:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cart (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Charles, but the moment is everything here, great capture of the desperation during the fight against the virus Poco a poco (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 16:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. It seems to suggest a sense of helplessness, as if the doctor, despite all her efforts, was still small. Powerful image --Postcrosser (talk) 20:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO the best of these Covid-photos. I like the composition, per Poco and Postcrosser. It's the only one I really feel moved to vote in favour for. Cmao20 (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support The most "moody" shot in the series, imo.--Peulle (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 and Postcrosser. --Aristeas (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support love the composition! --El Grafo (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I might have suggested cropping down to the lower right but ... apart from likely making the image too small, it conveys how dwarfed this woman must feel battling this disease. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, per Charlesjsharp. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 12:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I specifically sggested a separate evaluation of this photo, if I recall correctly.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

COVID-19 photo portraits, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2020 at 19:41:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Portrait of Giulio Mensi, anesthesiologist
Portrait of Olivia Giorgi, nurse Intensive Care Unit
Portrait of Eleonora Hulsof, nurse anesthetist
Portrait of Federico Neri, nurse anesthetist
Portrait of Silvia Ligi, anesthesiologist doctor
Portrait of Vincenzo Siciliano, intensive care nurse
Portrait of Francesca Palumbo, intensive care nurse
Portrait of Federico Paolin, anesthesiologist doctor
Portrait of Annalisa Silvestri, anesthesiologist doctor
Portrait of Monica Luzi, anesthesiologist doctor
Portrait of Maria Trillini, nurse Intensive Care Unit
Portrait of Michelle Brozzi, anesthesiologist doctor
Portrait of Luciano Paolucci. first aid doctor
Portrait of Marina Massarini, anesthesiologist doctor

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created by Alberto Giuliani - uploaded by Alberto Giuliani - nominated by Camelia.boban -- Camelia (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I nominated again this serie of portraits seen as a set by the author and by who published this shooting (e.g. Faces of the frontline by The British Journal of Photography). As for the previous discussion, many express their support, with the condition to exclude the photo n° 09 which is not a portrait. The other 2 photos, n° 02 and 09 were nominated separately. -- Camelia (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, I hope there will be no objections this time. All photos shoud be also promoted to Quality within a few days. --Andrei (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- powerful and meaningful portraits. Seven Pandas (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Timely, but most of the images are poorly composed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----ahuR ☘ 12:50, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A striking, powerful series! It's been critically acclaimed worldwide and we're exremely lucky to have it on Commons. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can accept this as a set because the diversity of it makes the impact of this series greater than seeing the photos one by one, sort of similar to the posters we have of flowers. This is also how these photos are usually presented around the world. The series is so noted, it's probably only a matter of time before it has its own WP article. I know what the FPC guidelines says about sets, but we live in exceptional times and to me this is a case of ignoring rules that keep us from improving this Wiki Project. Looking at any one of the photos, I see a good portrait; as a set I see it as a real contender for POTY. (Sets are counted as one entry in the POTY voting) --Cart (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having this stuff on Commons is great, but per Charles, in some cases there is just too much room over the head and in one case the head is cropped. I see that these works have been published but does it make out of if a set? I would support some of these images but not all of them are FP and I don't see the fulfillment of any of the criteria for a set nomination, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Danu Widjajanto (talk) 16:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I highly appreciate the photographer's work, but such a big collection isn't something I would file under "the very best of Commons". A couple of well selected photos from the same series is enough. --A.Savin 16:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Powerful and representative images --Postcrosser (talk) 20:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Alsakan (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- MartinD (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Grtek (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin Falbisoner. --Aristeas (talk) 10:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not every one of them would be a good FP candidate on its own. But as a set they work very well. --El Grafo (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works much better as a set of just portraits. Daniel Case (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, yes! ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 12:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Individually these images wouldn't pass. But as a set, I doubt, we have anything even remotely as powerful in this domain. --MB-one (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support but as a compromise with people opposing the candidature, this proposal looks to me like two sets, portraits of the faces and portraits of half the body.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why are there no black doctors in these photos? --Wilfredor (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I recall, these folks all work at a hospital in Pesaro, Italy. I'm guessing there probably aren't black personnel there. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amur falcon at Tengragiri .jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2020 at 03:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes
Info created and uploaded by Touhid biplob - nominated by RockyMasum -- Rocky Masum (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rocky Masum (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks quite nice, but the resolution is too low to really impress me and make me say that this is one of the very best images on Commons.--Peulle (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. This is good enough to be a QI, but not remotely comparable in quality to the great bird pictures we've been featuring. Please look through the galleries of FP birds to remind yourself of how great they are, especially the recently-promoted ones. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Touhid biplob: Do you perhaps have a higher resolution version of this image available? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely angle and good sharpness on the head but the resolution is really too low for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The low resolution, plus the branch is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ivan the Terrible and Harsey.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2020 at 09:20:35

Info Resolution too low for FP (Original nomination)
Delist Also, there is a better version of this image I would like to overwrite it with. Still not FP worthy regardless --Alsakan (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Alsakan, COM:OVERWRITE does not permit you to overwrite this file on Commons, unless it comes from the same source (i.e. just a higher resolution version of the same scan/photograph of that painting). If it is a new photograph/scan or from a different source, you must upload as a different filename. Same if it is your own adjustment (e.g. white balance) of the image. -- Colin (talk) 10:16, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Just to be safe, I have uploaded the version I was going to use to overwrite under a different file name. Do you believe that what I did was correct according to COM:OVERWRITE or should I just overwrote the original? I mean, the new file is not my own adjustment of the image and the improvements are relatively minor to the point where I believe they are the from the same scan of the painting. --Alsakan (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would think the differences between the images were minor. One has higher contrast and darker shadows. It isn't easy for someone unfamiliar with the paintings to judge which is the more accurate reproduction. There is detail in the lighter one that is very hard to see in the darker shadows of yours. I agree it is very likely they come from the same scan because both JPGs are the same size and are in exact position alignment, but also both have separate sources so we don't know what the source ultimately is. Commons should offer both as separate filenames, and then Wikipedians and other re-users can choose which one they prefer. If you overwrite, which is against policy, then it is like you (Commons) dictating what all Wikipedias should see. I appreciate that overwriting is convenient because then all Wikipedias get updated with the new image, but that is also the drawback -- none of them get notified that their image has changed. Having separate files avoids Commons being the conflict and pushes that burden onto those who make a choice between them. -- Colin (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Agreed on this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not high enough resolution nowadays - real shame as I actually really like this painting. Cmao20 (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others.--Peulle (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --El Grafo (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others. --Cayambe (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Repin Cossacks.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2020 at 09:03:35

Info This image got superseded. It seems that the vote requirements and standards for featuring images 13 years ago were nowhere near as strict or high as they are now. (Original nomination)
Delist The best version of this painting on here is not good enough for FP either. --Alsakan (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed on this one, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist unfortunately. Cmao20 (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist yes.--Peulle (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --El Grafo (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Daniel Case (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Andrei (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Cayambe (talk) 05:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis carolinensis) in flight.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2020 at 08:47:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Family : Pelecanidae (Pelicans)
Info It felt like I was being given the once over. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good catch of a bird in flight but the frame is too large with a lot of empty space, the image looks overprocessed as if Topaz Denoise had been pushed too much, the light is not very appealing, and the resolution is rather on the weak side -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed. --Ivar (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. --Alsakan (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doca do Cavacas - Funchal 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2020 at 15:05:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Portugal
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support One does instantly wish to be there. Simply excellent. --MB-one (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm enjoying my vicarious visit, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 08:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Zcebeci (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fun. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Judasboom (Cercis canadensis 'Forest Pansy'). 15-04-2020. (actm.) 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2020 at 15:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Fabaceae
Info Judas tree ( Cercis canadensis 'Forest Pansy') Blooms on the bare wood. Location, Garden Tuinreservaat Jonker Valley.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit dark IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Made slightly lighter. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good quality, nice sharpness and pretty plant. However I think it would be better if the crop were less tight at the bottom (and, if anything, tighter at the top). Cmao20 (talk) 23:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Slightly cropped above. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I think that does make the composition more balanced. Cmao20 (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20's positive remarks. The form is simple but the plant is beautiful and the resolution is excellent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technically well done, but that's about it. Sorry, no wow for me. --El Grafo (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me is great --Sonya7iv (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo. Ordinary light, not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Baumweißling (Aporia crataegi).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2020 at 12:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
Info created & uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Ivar (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We already have an existing FP of this species with early morning 'dew'. This one is much better Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another amazing picture --Wilfredor (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Hmm, not so sure. I think it'd be OK if we only had one other FP of this species, but we have absolutely loads - as well as the one Charles links to, see 1 (IMO quite similar to this one); 2; 3; 4 (should possibly be delisted); 5. Is there room for a seventh FP, especially with a similar background to some of Sven Damerow's others? The resolution is very good here, but I prefer the composition on a number of the others. Cmao20 (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done and very different from the available FPs -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wilfredor and especially George. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Diaphanous. --Camelia (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 21:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Axel ^(talk) 00:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive sharpness. But the blurry bottom is really distracting, and could be cut in my opinion. Support for the level of detail -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)

File:Komodo dragons (Varanus komodoensis) fighting.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2020 at 13:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Varanidae (Monitor Lizards and Komodo dragon)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice quality for an 'action shot', I like how you can see the dust being kicked up. Cmao20 (talk) 15:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful scene. Shame about the shadow on the bottom animal.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support But it looks like they're doing something other than fighting. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just boys' stuff, mateǃ Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Danu Widjajanto (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci 20:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent paparazzi 📷 :-) Basile Morin (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Varanidae (Monitor Lizards and Komodo dragon)

File:Phalaenopsis Cultivar Yellow 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2020 at 09:51:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae
Info Yellow Phalaenopsis cultivar. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Beautiful plant! Is that an indoor plant with purple paper in the background? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Info @Ikan Kekek: Yes, it is an indoor plant, and I used a curtain as background --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lighting and colours are disturbing, especially when you have File:Wiesenschaumkraut (Cardamine pratensis)-20200416-RM-095356.jpg as a benchmark. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the background and colours, they are fun and creative. Cmao20 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support In isolation, purple is my favorite color. I agree with Charles that it's not an ideal background in this case, as it calls a fair amount of attention to itself, but it's a matter of taste, and the photo is beautiful, overall, so I just respect the photographer's latitude in making such decisions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Eventually oppose rather than neutral. the colours, lighting and background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 21:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Just different enough to be interesting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 12:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would cut both sides a bit, but apart from that I enjoy the picture -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae

File:Thornback cowfish (Lactoria fornasini) (43629194360).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2020 at 14:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Ostraciidae
Info created by Rickard Zerpe - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Ivar (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is great. I had seen it myself but shied away from nominating owing to relatively low resolution. However I think it's more than adequate for a challenging underwater photo. An unusual creature and very well captured. Cmao20 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems soft, but I am not clear what is our benchmark for underwater shots. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was that choice of words deliberate?

Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks sharp enough to me --Poco a poco (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'd say sharpness/DoF is OK (although not great) for an under water shot. It is rather small (just over 4Mpx). The crop is tight and the framing somewhat awkward (needs more room at the bottom/right). The E-M1 Mark II has a 20Mpx sensor, so it feels like either a better crop or higher resolution should have been possible. The eyes look fascinating, though! --El Grafo (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Sonya7iv (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Ostraciidae

File:Wide view to Bergsbotn, Senja, Troms, Norway, 2015 September.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2020 at 15:17:23 (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 Another dramatic Norwegian landscape. created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful scenery.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great panorama by Ximonic, plus labeling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another lovely image of the Norwegian Arctic that comes along at just the right time ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question You're feeling hot already? This weather really has been mild. Toward the middle of next week, I'll be wanting pictures of snow and ice... :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Camelia (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci 20:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support from the resident Norwegian.--Peulle (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support big wow - Benh (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Aristeas (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Traditional Christmas meal on Margarita Island.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2020 at 21:20:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info I'm very sorry and I apologize if this image is a too strong, but even cruel and bloody images IMHO could be useful to document our cultural heritage, in this case my village on Margarita Island, Las Guevaras. All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I strongly disagree, Wilfredo. I see no place here for inhumane butchery practices. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The type of photography I take is always a documentating protests, poverty, dictatorship in my country or human savagery.Wilfredor (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you sure about this nom?! this image is the same like this one, which you already proposed to FPC without success. I don't see a reason to upload the same image twice nor proposing it twice to FP without any improvements. It's also a good practice to mention previous noms. --Poco a poco (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any improvement?, please take a look more close. I used negative comments from the last nominations to improve the current nomination quality of the photos, I find your comment and I know that is not a presumption of bad faith Wilfredor (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you spell them out more? I'm not seeing a very big difference, though I see some. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed the distracting t-shirt --Wilfredor (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes, I see that now that I'm paying attention to it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No presumption of bad faith from me here. I can tell you that. The normal way would have been though 1) uploading a new version of the existing image indicating the changes 2) mentioning here the previous FPC candidate of this image. That's what I pointed out. Nothing more and nothing less. --Poco a poco (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks Poco --Wilfredor (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, I'm fine with the goat, but the photoshopped hand on the left looks horrific. --El Grafo (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hands of a peasant who has worked all his life tilling the land could different than a normal people, arthritis and other diseases come faster. Additionally, it is what I was looking for here showing the hands of a monster Wilfredor (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear: I'm talking about anatomy here, not skin color or texture or anything like this. Of course it needs to be wrinkled and skinny an old. You've achieved that look very well. But the way you attached the back of the hand to the existing fingers (especially the thumb) does not look convincing to me. Something's wrong about the angle, tendons don't seem to match the fingers. --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose An interesting and provocative picture that I could see supporting for QI, but it's got too much going on compositionally to be an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel.--Peulle (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Totally lacks sensuality. Just cruel and repulsive with no redeeming factor -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be more objective and give less viceral reasons. This was a beautiful activity to share with my family, very common throughout the country during Christmas and I understand that this is something terrible, and I know that many here are vegetarians, however, not all cultures have the same spiritual vision of beliefs. For some countries eating cats and dogs is widely accepted, perhaps we should stop documenting this because it is simply too strong for a western man from a developed country who does not know where the mcdonalds nugets come from?. --Wilfredor (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to look at, and I surely respect vegetarians, but goat is delicious, and if you live in a village and have to slaughter animals yourself without some way to make them peacefully unconscious beforehand, this is a humane form of slaughter. Anyone who can't stand to look at this should seriously consider becoming a vegetarian, in my opinion. (Personal aside: when I lived in rural Malaysia, I witnessed many slaughters. It was quite upsetting, but I ate the chicken, goat, water buffalo, etc., though mostly fish, rice, vegetables and fruit, and though I eat mostly vegetables and dairy now that I'm not going to restaurants, I choose to roast a chicken or make chicken soup from scratch every so often, and I used to raise chickens, so I'm very conscious of what I'm doing and do feel guilty about it, but so far, not enough to stop doing it.) I'm just not finding the composition an FP for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely don't care about the men (or the women) eating burgers outside. I'm reviewing this picture. Ugly with no pleasure, photographically. My personal opinion. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The filename should be changed when the nomination is closed. This is a picture of the goat being slaughtered, not the meal. - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disgusting motif. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind the motif, not so long ago we had the same tradition here in old Sweden, although we used a pig instead. I recall that you have to whip the blood in the bucket during the slaughter to make it ready for making black-pudding. That was traditionally done by a woman. Unfortunately, this is more like a 'how-to-do' photo than an FP. It lacks a wow-y composition or any element that would make it FP material. Also the file name is incorrect as noted above. --Cart (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. I have no intrinsic problem with a motif I find distasteful to look at becoming featured, but I agree with Cart that the composition is not really at FP level. Cmao20 (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cart. --Gnosis (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Palauenc05--Andrei (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cygnus olor head - back.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2020 at 09:11:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Cygnus
Info all by Yerpo -- — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know, a terribly common subject, but I believe this angle is unique, showing serrated edges and other features of the lower mandible.
Support — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weird angle -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --Basotxerri (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the angle is really nothing that special, just from the back and slightly to the side of the animal while it was resting with head down. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An idea worth trying but in this case it didn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. Might be a useful VI in the right scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP composition and I cannot imagine a suitable VI scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The scope would include "showing lower mandible". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:HG71325.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2020 at 09:15:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created by Herbert karim masihi - uploaded by Herbert karim masihi - nominated by Persia -- ahuR ☘ 09:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ahuR ☘ 09:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice chandelier, but the rest isn't lit very well and doesn't impress this viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Love the colors, but it seems a little tilted/off-center and once I realized we were looking up a stairwell, not towards a portal on some sci-fi movie set, it didn't seem like an FP anymore. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Quite wow-y IMO, but also quite clearly tilted. Also the file name is not much of a description, and should probably be changed to be more descriptive when this nomination is complete. Cmao20 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like the photo composition is falling apart --Andrei (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sidi Saiyyed Mosque Ahmedabad Gujarat - Jali Work.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2020 at 09:46:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#India
Info created by Saket.lakhia - uploaded by Saket.lakhia - nominated by User:Saket.lakhia -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saket.lakhia (talk) 09:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice pattern, best viewed at full screen. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive - well done. Cmao20 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really prefer this in color, as shown here. I don't think that photo is an FP, but that's beside my point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 04:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd prefer the colour version --Llez (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Llez and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great egret in GWC (43539).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2020 at 19:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ardea
Info Great egret as it darts its head into the water to catch a fish. created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems as if something horrid has happened during processing. Fringes and a checker pattern. Can you have a look, please, Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear yes there are several issues that came up somewhere along the line (although if you could annotate where you see a checker pattern, that would be helpful -- I'm not seeing that one). I don't have time to fix right now, so I'm just going to I withdraw my nomination and will renominate if I can fix. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Since this hasn't been closed yet, I'll add a question: I think I can probably fix most of the issues. Since that may take a while to do, it would be useful to hear if people think it would indeed be worthwhile to renominate. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cala Rajada Punta de Capdepera Faro-1623.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2020 at 20:21:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Spain
Info created & uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well composed. Cmao20 (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the direction of light is very favorable to the greenery, giving it a nice glow, it is not favorable to the rock which makes up a majority of the foreground, causing it to look hazy and washed out. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, at first, the upper part may seem faded compared to the foreground. But looking again, I also see it as a gradual transition from the earthly, strong, concrete to the celestial dimension, where everything becomes ethereal. For me this is a FP. --Camelia (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Great composition but I agree with King about the lighting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice moody composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Zcebeci (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers#Spain

File:Kirab Calon Lengger Wanasaban.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2020 at 19:21:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Giri Wijayanto - uploaded by Giri Wijayanto - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even though the size let me down. - Benh (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Benh, definitely on the small side but very striking. Cmao20 (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Giri Wijayanto, ada gambar ini dalam saiz lagi besar? Kalau ada, sila menukarnya dengan gambar kecil ini. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Support ✿Dimas Laksani✿ ☏ 11:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, invalid vote. The rules are: "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." You only have 29 edits so far on Commons. You can vote on you own nomination, but not on other's yet. --Cart (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support A bit satured IMHO --Wilfredor (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Apart from the saturation, the crop doesn't seem right - with too much space bottom right and not enough top left. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The saturation is way too obvious and artificial. --Andrei (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition, but IMO not sharp enough and resolution too low. Why only f/5.6? --XRay ^talk 04:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh and Charlesjsharp's comments. --MB-one (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I think the color is realistic based on other photos of similar locations in Indonesia we've seen, but I think the picture would be stronger cropped in on the sides so it's just the walking dancers and the curving swath in the grass. See note. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would have supported with more room at the top -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Same as Basile. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnatural colors and not optimal crop. The motive had a lot of potential, but I'm afraid this picture doesn't deliver. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small image. Not all the women are looking up, so it isn't optimal timing. The top right corner is distracting. -- Colin (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compo is a little off. Waiting for the procession to take a few more steps would have been better. --Cart (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 4 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Tudor1.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2020 at 20:01:21

Info ~~Resolution too small for FP.~~ Not really historically or artistically special compared to other painted portraits of its time period. White spots everywhere. Colors desaturated. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Alsakan (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes on the size, so I would vote to delist this one on that basis if I take it in isolation, but are we going to remove every old FP that was promoted before the current size guidelines were adopted? Is that a good use of our time? What do you all think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starter, almost all other FP historical paintings are larger than this one iirc. Then again, I might have reconsidered nominating it for removal if the painting itself is special or wow-y in some way. For me, its lacking historical and artistic merits are much more important. Alsakan (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without seeing the work in person, it's hard for me to be sure about its artistic quality, but the historic merit seems evident to me, considering who it's a portrait of. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much every European monarch and their consorts, famous or not, at least in the past 500 years have at least one portrait painted during their lifetimes. This one just does not stand out for me. Alsakan (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I probably wouldn't actually support a full-size nomination of a reproduction of this painting, but I often skip voting on reproductions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep The reason why this image is lower than 2 MP is because this was overwritten. FPs must not be overwritten, unless the change is very minor per COM:OVERWRITE. I reverted the image to the 22 February 2014 version, which is larger than 2 MP, and is the one that was reviewed in the original nomination. --panda kekok 9 07:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am still nominating this for delist regardless. My point about its lacking historical and artistic values still stands. Now, the problem is not the size of the file but the white spots and colors.

Weak keep Hmm, I wouldn't say it lacks historical value. If I think of Mary Tudor this is the portrait I have in mind (not least because I've seen the original.) The white spots probably need fixing but otherwise the image quality looks OK. Cmao20 (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we allowed to fix and then overwrite an image that is still FP? --Alsakan (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alsakan: Yes, as long as the changes are very minor and uncontroversial (like removing dust spots). panda kekok 9 06:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Hopefully, someone will fix this image's current flaws. If I find a better version that is as large, I will probably upload it and nominate this for delist and replace. --Alsakan (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:1897 - Tonkin - Bac Ninh - Bonze de la pagode de Quang Minh.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2020 at 07:27:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by André Salles - uploaded by A - nominated by A -- 阿 ^talk 07:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 阿 ^talk 07:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe a good candidate for VI or even Wikipedia's FP, but this is not an outstanding portrait photograph by Commons FPC standards. Way too much space above the head, bottom crop goes right through the hand. A tighter crop could help, a bit of retouching wouldn't hurt either. I think there's better stuff in Category:André Salles. --El Grafo (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've made a tighter crop to reduce this white space over the head and did a little reworking in the lower left corner of the picture. Maybe it would help to improve this photo a little. --阿 ^talk 09:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's featurable and in good condition, but for FP, it may need digital restoration to get rid of small stray marks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Seeing what other people think about restoring it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ FP rulesː "Featured pictures are images from highly skilled photographers"ː the link defines photographers as Wiki photographers. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin has edited the page that I used as the basis of my oppose. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colin has correctly pointed out that the FP image guidelines have been the same since 2007. I was reading a page that had been edited in error by ANO. Apologies to all. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gubuk Derita.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2020 at 07:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Indonesia
Info created by Made agus devayana - uploaded by Made agus devayana - nominated by Dimas Laksani -- Dimas Laksani (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dimas Laksani (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Very effective composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that there are too many technical defects. I didn't look closely enough. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Danu Widjajanto (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Veracious (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, a beautiful composition, but I see very evident green chromatic aberration on the left facing side of the house, plus a little magenta CA on the roof, and I see some dust spots in the sky and water. If these problems are fixed, I will remove my opposing vote and might possibly support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
chromatic aberration --Wilfredor (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Stunning composition, but neutral per the very obvious technical faults Ikan points out. Will very happily change to support if fixed. Cmao20 (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a floating house. - Benh (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides the CA, also not very sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The technical quality must be better. The shadows are too dark, halos, magenta and green CAs, ... --XRay ^talk 04:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan Kekek's comment. And, its filename should be more descriptive by requesting rename after this discussion. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 12:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek --Llez (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FP at thumbnail size, unfortunately a clear no-go at full resolution due to obvious technical flaws -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose due to horrid CA. Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose problematic CA --Zcebeci (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* I withdraw my nomination --Danu Widjajanto (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danu Widjajanto, you can't withdraw this nomination since it's not yours. Or is Dimas Laksani your account too? --Cart (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter sorry that was my lapse of memory :)) I thought I had made two nominations (I wanted to retract one of them so I can nominate this image), and I have mistakenly conflated this nomination with this one. Dimas is not my account; we are both admins on the Indonesian Wikipedia. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Xiangmen Gate Suzhou November 2017 002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2020 at 03:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#China
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant photo, nice soft light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose But the light does not ilustrate the subject. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I think too much of the main subject is in shadow. Good quality shot and well-composed, but so much of the subject itself is pitch-black. Cmao20 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light is not optimal, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support the light accentuates the contrast and highlights the architecture, it works for me. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per the pro and contra arguments given above. --Aristeas (talk) 09:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'd be OK with the lighting, maybe, if the sky behind it were a more even tone. Daniel Case (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Relatively harsh light, too much in the shadow -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Alsakan (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:POL COA Trzaska.svg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2020 at 11:24:27

Info There are countless of these coats of arms of same or similar quality either made by Bastianow or deriative of/heavily using elements from his works (See this category or its subcategories) and this one does not stand out from any of them and is nothing special as far as computer generated coats of arms go. (Original nomination)
Delist As someone interested in royalty and nobility, I have seen numerous CG coats of arms on Commons and the standards for them have come a really really long way in the past 13 years. This image just pales in comparison to the ones created by the likes of Glasshouse, Heralder, and Sodacan, to name a few. --Alsakan (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hope I am not upsetting or eliciting resentment from anyone by nominating more than one FPs for delisting in a row. Just going to put this out there, I have ton of images I plan to nominate for FP and I just want to get all the delistings out of the way first. --Alsakan (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: "get all the delistings out of the way first" might not be such a good idea. You risk wearing voters down with too many delists in a row; you risk losing people's interest. Why don't you alternate between new nom and delist instead. --Cart (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Yeah, on second thought, you are right. Wearing voters down and earning their ires are things I must avoid if I want my future nominations to be successful. Perhaps, I should withdraw this one for now and renominate it for delist later after I have finished nominating another image for FP. Does anyone else here share the same sentiments? --Alsakan (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Nice illustration but not outstanding amongst computer-generated imagery. Cmao20 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I sincerely apologize, Cmao20. But, I have decided to listen to Cart's advice and withdraw this one for now. Please vote again when I renominate it sometimes later. Thank you. --Alsakan (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Myslivny bozi dar lake.jpg (delist), delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2020 at 04:52:48

Info C/U/N by SehLax. Found this one recently while doing categorization; promoted almost 15 years ago when Commons was new. Would not be promoted now—small, unsharp and really not that remarkable even without those shortcomings (Original nomination)
Delist -- Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Cayambe (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Alsakan (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Peulle (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Ivar (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --GRDN711 (talk) 14:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Reflections-of-clouds-in-water has been done many times better than this, though I have no doubt it was good in its day. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --El Grafo (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 11 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /pandakekok9 08:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:SL Bundala NP asv2020-01 img33.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2020 at 11:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Leporidae (Hares and rabbits)
Info An Indian hare in the Bundala National Park (Sri Lanka) ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 11:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the animal but the grass background is distracting. Perhaps a tighter crop? Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Zcebeci (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kaldari (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:10مقبره شیخ صفی الدین اردبیلی.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2020 at 20:20:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Iran
Info created by Mahdi Ahadzade - uploaded by Mahdi Ahadzade - nominated by Persia -- ahuR ☘ 20:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ahuR ☘ 20:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy and a lack of sharpness.--Ermell (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more or less per Ermell. FP is for the very best photos on the site. This is not a great photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic with a lot of wow, but some major flaws - not centered; lots of blue CA on the windows; and very blurry in the corners. It's definitely impressive, but tbh I'm surprised it passed QI. Cmao20 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Maybe it had a chance without the noise ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Andrei (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018-10-10 Mixed BMX freestyle park – Boys' Qualification at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics (Martin Rulsch) 24.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2020 at 18:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
Info created by DerHexer - uploaded by DerHexer - nominated by DerHexer -- —DerHexer (Talk) 18:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again the background is just too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The background enriches the message of the photo: Insofar as it was not taken on a track but in a park of the inner city of a metropolis, Buenos Aires. A unique move of the IOC which is perfectly represented here. Even the building is absolutely necessary to give a feeling of the enormous height of the athlete and follows awarded photos like this one. A crop like this would make way less sense. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 07:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I accept the background, but it is too bright IMO and parts of the T-shirt are overexposed --Llez (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I buy the reasoning from the nominator above, and it's sharper than the archery shot below. Good action shot for FP to me. Cmao20 (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting action but unappealing light and distracting background -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:2018-10-17 Archery at 2018 Summer Youth Olympics – Second Round – Section 2 – Mexico vs. Colombia (Martin Rulsch) 18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2020 at 18:35:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
Info created by DerHexer - uploaded by DerHexer - nominated by DerHexer -- —DerHexer (Talk) 18:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be nice to have a featured archery picture; however this isn't going to be it as the background is too distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. Interesting image though. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I like this for the look of concentration and direction that you captured. The background doesn't detract from that as far as I'm concerned, though obviously a photo affects different people differently. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ok I get that the flying arrow is a plus, but compo-wise it is not the best photo. I think this one is much better. You have the same concentration, about the same sharpness, same competition, but that archer is not having his elbow in someone else's face and the background is much better. Unfortunately in both pics, the sharpness is stuck on the bow and not on the archer. --Cart (talk) 10:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cart is right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice action shot but the background is quite distracting (with the other blurry man), and the sharpness is indeed on the bow not the archer. Cmao20 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:African helmeted turtle (Pelomedusa subrufa).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2020 at 08:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Pelomedusidae (Side-necked Turtles)
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good focus, sharp, excellent light and colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. Cmao20 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice earthiness not often seen in photographs of turtles. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got pretty earthy too lying on the ground Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support A shame that we cannot see the legs, but still FP to me Poco a poco (talk) 10:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 09:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I loved the natural ocher lighting --Wilfredor (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Pelomedusidae (Side-necked Turtles)

File:Christchurch Arts Centre, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2020 at 09:47:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#New_Zealand
Info It's Christchurch Arts Centre. I quite like the light. -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very pleasant balance of natural / artificial lights -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Larryasou (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and also because I like the neo-Gothic building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject and very nice lighting. --Cayambe (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the light too. Cmao20 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting and subject Poco a poco (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 09:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is nice! --Sonya7iv (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St. Venantius, Wertheim, Nave 20160802 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2020 at 16:45:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info DXR deserves more credit for giving so many German churches the Diliff treatment. Here is one of my favourites, the nave of St Venantius, a Roman Catholic parish church in Wertheim constructed between 1840 and 1842. created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @DXR: Could use some more contrast, with darker blacks and brighter midtones (e.g. the white walls). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nomination, Cmao! @King of Hearts: , I have tried to slightly rework this. Main challenge is that the walls are rather off-white and the windows far brighter than the walls. I have tried to reflect your comments while retaining the highlights to the best possible degree. --DXR (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem DXR - I will get round to nominating a couple more of your church interiors at some stage. Thanks for making the changes - I see that the resolution is now improved too! Cmao20 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why has the FPCBot not closed this nomination? It should have been closed yesterday by the five-day rule (11 supports, 0 opposed). Cmao20 (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@W.carter: , do you perhaps have an inkling of why this nom is still open? I didn't think I'd done anything wrong in how it's set up, but the bot is clearly not happy. Cmao20 (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly haven't got a clue. The code and everything look ok to me. The Bot has some strange hiccups from time to time... But since this is a clear case of "fifth day", there is nothing wrong with closing this manually, now done. --Cart (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks v. much. I would have done that myself except it doesn't seem right to close my own nomination somehow. Cmao20 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. There is no rule against closing your own nom, but it's considered more polite to ask/let someone else do it just to be on the safe side. --Cart (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't know, but maybe making it 12 will help. :). Also changed KoH's indentation, maybe that will help the bot too. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bloemknoppen van Caltha palustris 16-04-2020 (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2020 at 15:18:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info Flower buds of palustris above the water.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely colours and composition. Cmao20 (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and background. Light is a bit harsh. Overall not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Harsh light at 6:24 in the morning?--Famberhorst (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overexposed, then. But I don't understand this composition, that seems to include the blurry background voluntarily with a large frame. The cut at the left is also not successful in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are assumptions and not facts.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My subjective view is always true :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Basile and I also miss more wow Poco a poco (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background doesn't seem appropriate Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Caltha palustris stand on the waterfront in the water. The background is the water above which the plant hangs. The reflections in the water are from the trees above the water.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thanks for the explanation. My wording was poor. I am not keen on the background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. --Alsakan (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per charles. --El Grafo (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lower Manhattan from Governors Island August 2017 panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2020 at 03:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States
Info A rare glimpse of the Manhattan skyline from Governors Island at blue hour. Most of the year, the last ferry back departs around sunset, so this shot can only be obtained on special occasions when the operator decides to run a late schedule. All by King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, though it's amazing (to me, anyway) how much the stars trail in 8 seconds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, huge resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment good one, but you need to rework the seams on the water (added notes) - Benh (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Benh I don't see any notes but I saw the problem and agree, it should be fixed Poco a poco (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poco a poco, I added the notes on the nom page, maybe you were looking on the image page? - Benh (talk) 16:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benh To be honest, that was the place were I looked first but nothing was shown. Now I see than, strange. Thanks! --Poco a poco (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent resolution and quality, but the seams in the water are pretty noticeable, especially the one on the left. I sympathise with how tricky these are. On this photo it's extra irritating because it's easily overlooked at full resolution but really obvious when viewed in the thumbnail. Cmao20 (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. --Cayambe (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly FP if the water problem can be sorted King of ♥. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Benh, Poco a poco, and Charlesjsharp: Fixed. Unfortunately, due to phab:T256313 you may not see the updated full-size image immediately, but you can use this 20% downsample in the meantime (which is better for spotting seams anyways). Note that the MediaWiki downsampling introduces some artifacts which compromise the image quality, but the effect of the water should be apparent. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New version is live. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous - Benh (talk) 09:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 09:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is a minimal error in the correction of the verticals, the upper part of the structure seems bigger than the lower part --Wilfredor (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --Sonya7iv (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this ... there's a lot of potential in that view from Governor's Island now that it's easier to get. There's a reassuring stateliness to this skyline that I didn't realize I would be comforted by right about now. I like that it's compact, sort of like the Lujiazui skyline (although with mostly shorter and boxier buildings, but that may well change over the next few decades). Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Domob (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chloephaga melanoptera sat in daisies.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2020 at 11:27:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Family_:_Anatidae_(Ducks,_Geese,_and_Swans)
Info created - uploaded by Baresi franco - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 11:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not especially sharp or well isolated from the flowers, which have white petals not too different from many of its feathers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zcebeci 20:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slight purple fringing on the flowers, can you remove it? --Basotxerri (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done purple fringing removed, and partial sharpening added → @Ikan Kekek:

Looks better, but still not enough separation from the surroundings, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No definition to chest feathers. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical issues, or possible technical issues, aside, this is rather busy from a compositional standpoint. Daniel Case (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. Maybe not quite at the highest quality for a bird FP, but still good. Cmao20 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is a tough one since I actually like the composition but other technical issues are too much to overlook. --StellarHalo (talk) 09:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao20 --El Grafo (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sonya7iv (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:PrunusCerasifera0.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2020 at 17:36:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the gallery here>]]
Info created by Tmasjeg - uploaded by Tmasjeg - nominated by [[User:{{subst:Tmasjeg}}|]] -- Tmasjeg (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tmasjeg (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Composition/unclear subject, artefacts, disturbing background, unimpressive resolution. Also, you should get gallery right when nominating.--Peulle (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MosOblast Serpukhov District near Oka Station asv2019-09 img3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2020 at 13:23:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Russia
Info The Oka River at Serpukhov, Moscow Oblast ---- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The post-processing looks weird, like someone jacked up the clarity slider too high. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the composition and view in general, but it seems indeed a bit overprocessed per KoH (e.g. the trees lining the small stream on the right). If that can be fixed, I'll support. --Domob (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree with the above. The colours are too pale and washed-out, as if the shadows slider has been lifted too much. It's a really beautiful view though, but I don't think the processing and quality are as good as your usual work. Cmao20 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support good light and composition, good size too. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --A.Savin 22:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) male Montagne d’Ambre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2020 at 08:54:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Chamaeleonidae (Chameleons)
Info There is doubt about the number of possible subspecies of Furcifer pardalis. There may even be as many as fourteen different species. The males are sometimes described as colour morphs or forms. At the moment, the safest definition is to define locale. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alsakan (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty lizard. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp, and the background is perfect. Cmao20 (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although there is a clearly visible shadow of the animal ;-) --Llez (talk) 06:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well spottedǃǃ Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Chamaeleonidae (Chameleons)

File:Sciurus vulgaris in Aberdeenshire.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2020 at 12:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sciurus vulgaris in Aberdeenshire

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Sciuridae (Squirrels)
Info created by Sonya7iv - uploaded by Sonya7iv - nominated by Sonya7iv -- Sonya7iv (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sonya7iv (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Like it. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Cmao20 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Support~~ Not super sharp but very nice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Benh (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very well photographed, but that one branch that is in front of the squirrel really bothers me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice action -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Looks a bit oversharpened and also too bright but still FP to me Poco a poco (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes Sonya7iv, colours could be a bit deeper. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done better? For the other request,no thanks,for the moment --Sonya7iv (talk) 10:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better, thanks Poco a poco (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit too bright IMO but nevertheless --Llez (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sonya7iv, could you clarify the authorship of this image? I believe this is the same image, with different copyright and EXIF data, and seemingly a different author (Tony Enticknap) Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well spoted Julesvernex2, thanks for that. This is really strange, as, on the one hand, the picture is obviously the same, while on the other hand, the EXIF data here and on Flickr are not identical (check especially the "Original Document ID", which differs). I have the impression that one of both versions has faked EXIF, and now the big question is: which one? --A.Savin 16:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Flickr image, as far as I can see, was submitted there much longer ago (~2 years) rather than the Commons image, and has higher maximum resolution (5,930 x 3,706) than the Commons image. I don't want to be once again the one who bites newbies, but this is really suspicious. --A.Savin 16:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A.Savin, a little bit of digging has also brought this and this to my attention. Cmao20 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well... @Sonya7iv: Any statement? --A.Savin 16:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin, a couple more: this and this current FPC; this and this. I looked at the metadata of 6/7 images uploaded by this user, and all of them included the watermark metadata Flickr adds to downloads, so the issue may be widespread Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case of the Kingfisher picture, the Flickr version is indeed a bit smaller than the Commons version, but this is probably due to upscaling: compare the maximum-sized file on Flickr and on Commons. --A.Savin 18:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, hard to know for sure since this Flickr image in particular is not downloadable. The other cases (e.g. the one above) seem more clear-cut, as the Flickr EXIF goes back to the original raw processing (see HISTORYPARAMETERS here), while the Commons EXIF appears to be only a Photoshop export (here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesvernex2 (talk • contribs)
Disabling downloads doesn't actually do anything, and can be easily defeated by Ctrl+U (show source) and a search for ".jpg". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per discussion above. Sonya7iv has uploaded images from Flickr authors Tony (tickspics), Cimino Del Bufalo, Ian Ireland, Stephen Yang and how many more? --Ivar (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also from the author Tony Rawson with this - seems to be a different account from the 'Tony' of the 'tickspics' pictures. Cmao20 (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, probably will have to delete all per COM:PRP. I have to admit that my feelings about "Sonya7iv" were not very good from the beginning on; that's why I avoided to vote on their nominations, despite the fact that some pictures were brilliant. --A.Savin 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Delete all and an indef block. ("Only way to be sure") I didn't go so far as suspect foul play, but I always thought the photos and choice of motif looked like they were taken by a man. Then again there are all sorts of people. --Cart (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How very disappointing. Would explain how RAW files were not available. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iifar, Cmao20, Charlesjsharp, W.carter, and A.Savin: , Julesvernex2, etc, I think we should continue this discussion at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates where perhaps we can together form a list of identified suspect copyvios. Then there can be a DR and an AN/I to discuss deleting the images and any block. This user has uploaded > 100 images over three months, so we need to also consider how this has escaped detection. -- Colin (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Copyvio, now deleted. --Cart (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Alcedo atthis ispida in the water.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2020 at 18:30:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Alcedinidae (Kingfishers)
Info created by Sonya7iv - uploaded by Sonya7iv - nominated by Sonya7iv -- Sonya7iv (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sonya7iv (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Quality is not the best, but definitely no easy feat to capture this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Benh (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Technical quality is poor, but capture is brilliant. The eye looks odd because the kingfisher has an eyelid membrane that closes just before hitting the water. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --StellarHalo (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not so sharp but very striking capture -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per other comments --Llez (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my support --Ivar (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose looks like Sonya7iv is not author of this image. Original author is Stephen Yang --Ivar (talk) 18:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ and as Charles says, the odd-looking eye adds extra illustrative value. Cmao20 (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info See discussion regarding authorship on this nom. --Cart (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Copyvio, now deleted. --Cart (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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