Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/October 2021

File:Krakow - Kosciol Mariacki.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2021 at 19:36:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Poland
Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't oppose, but there are posterization lines in the sky that would be best smoothed out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the contrast makes it look nice :) SHB2000 (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan and one big dust spot between towers. --Mile (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the spot. No idea how to fix posterization though. If i simply use "spot fix" all over the sky, will it do any good? --Andrei (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I make one more edit (posterization). But mistake was made at the beggining. Low JPEG quality - 13 Mpx file at 1,51 MB. I hope its fine now or revert, up to Jar.ciurus. --Mile (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a mil, Mile! Jar.ciurus is not active for years, so i am alone here --Andrei (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That solved the problem. Still undecided on whether to support but definitely no reason for me to consider opposing now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good composition and sharpness. --Milseburg (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. As often in Jar Ciurus’ photos there has been IMHO too much/strong denoising applied, but the result is still good and the composition and mood are very good. --Aristeas (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sky seems to be deep blue except near the pillars and the church where it is lighter. See my notes. Introduced during post-processing? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Until sky explained or sorted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The view of the church is interesting and the image is very sharp, but the right tower in the upper part is slightly bent on the outer side probably as a result of perspective correction.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Unfortunately, I am bothered that both columns are blurred by about 90 percent. This creates a weird contrast. But the composition, mood and light are really great! -- Radomianin (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure about the added value of the second arch but still, quality and mood are there, and the spot is very crowded --Poco a poco (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Löwenburg - Bergpark Wilhelmshöhe 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2021 at 14:25:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support LGTM. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detail, light and subject Poco a poco (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, nice light, interesting architecture, great! -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 16:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 08:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Мусака од компири.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2021 at 14:08:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Food
Info created by Cuklev - uploaded by Cuklev - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good shot, i suggest some crop on top and bottom (portrait mode really dont work here, unles pano - i tried, rotation does not work), and to correct mistake (anoted). --Mile (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a cropped version that is used across several Wikipedias to illustrate the dish.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have edited that part. Maybe will work as portrait. I would give croped as an ALT. --Mile (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very attractive dish, and unusually for dish or meal pictures we see here and at QIC, all of the dish is very sharp. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- Radomianin (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could definitely be the cover of a home cookbook. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This strange green I don't understand; hopefully it's not the potatoes that look like this. The knife should not have been as dirty and worn. This picture of the same dish I find much more appetizing (though still not sufficient for FP). --A.Savin 01:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support LGTM and the dish looks really nice. SHB2000 (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. --Milseburg (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Impressive photo, but A.Savin is certainly right that prepared potatoes should not have such a green shine ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the uploader appears to be AWOL, I've taken the liberty of dialing in magenta +10. Hopefully this should resolve the green tint issue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much – IMHO your version is definitely better. Funny coincidence: While you were uploading your version, Radomianin and me were also discussion how to improve this photo, and Radomianin has created yet another version which I like very much. @Radomianin: I would just suggest that you upload your edited version over the original, too, just as King of Hearts has done. Then everybody who is interested can compare the versions, and when King of Hearts’ version gets more approval (or even the original version), we can still revert the photo to the approved version. I hope this is OK for everyone :–). Best, --Aristeas (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded Many thanks to Aristeas for your comment. Mile's version was used as the basis for my editing. I only edited the relevant area of the moussaka: Selective color correction and softening of too sharp hotspots in this area. Greetings :) -- Radomianin (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info I hope the overwriting is according to the rules, because finally no photographer wants that his version is overwritten without being asked. Therefore at this point a ping to the author, even if he seems to be unreachable at the moment: Dear Wikimedian @Cuklev: I took the liberty to remove the green color cast in your moussaka photo as good as possible. During the FP voting process, some users noticed this flaw. I hope this edit is OK for you. Kind regards :) -- Radomianin (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: Regarding my edit, I left a message on the author's talk page. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much nicer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For either of the new version(s) with less green. IMHO even more appetizing now ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question I understand that a knive could be part of the compo, but why that gunny sack? what is it used for? --Poco a poco (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - It gives it depth an perspective. I think it'd boring without it. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Unpleasant vignetting and I would have preferred a knife in focus, but still fine for a food photography, rather rare in FPC -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Louis Béroud, La Place Du Louvre, 1902 - Artvee.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2021 at 03:47:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Exteriors#Streets
Info created by Louis Béroud - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great art and a valuable contribution. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this the right WB? Other versions of this I found online aren't quite this warm. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Хераклеја Линкестис 12.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2021 at 11:55:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Daniela Stefanoska - uploaded by Daniela Stefanoska - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, nothing remarkable about the composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light. The second word is difficult to read -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caradrina ssp. caterpillar (side view) - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2021 at 06:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Noctuidae_(Owlet_Moths)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are traces of green CA on the head, aren't there?--Peulle (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peulle: minor correction done, how about it now? --Ivar (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would rather use spec. in the file name instead of ssp, for the latter means "subspecies" (for example Haliotis discus ssp. hannai) --Llez (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Llez: you are correct. I will rename it to sp. after nomination period. --Ivar (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tram station "Branko's bridge" in 2021 (Belgrade, Serbia).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2021 at 12:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Transport_infrastructure
Info Tram station "Branko's bridge" (Belgrade, Serbia) with tram No.2 (called Deuce). -- Mile (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moving people 'ghosts' in tram car and on the street. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Charlesjsharp Sure, they can move, it is "Land of free home of the brave." --Mile (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info And a photographer has the opportunity to take his photo when the free and the brave are not moving. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not in Belgrade, you wont see it neither at 2 am. I removed those who spoiled look on the trams (walked out), but thoose inside do not bother my composition, neither bike rider on road (far left) or car (road on far right). That is long exposure, on public transport, people are part of it. --Mile (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exciting perspective on an interesting tram station (combines serveral architectural styles). --Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting picture, but it doesn't reach FP for me because it feels like the underside of the bridge and the tram station are fighting each other to be the subject of the image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas and Daniel(!) To me, it's the combination of the underside of the bridge and the trams that makes the composition. In other words, I think I see what appealed to Mile when he shot this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment talk, Ikan Kekek I see a good harmony between the elements (metal construction, stone beam, tram). I like composition very much, as did User:Mosbatho when on QI ("Excellent composition"). You dont have to lock on one subject, sometime you have to "Think outside the box". If i would do a reshot, i would do same compo, just add some traffic lights on bypassing traffic (cars). It is still in category Transport-Transport infrastructure. --Mile (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. Among other things, part of the underside of the bridge provides excellent leading lines toward the tram stop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I appreciate the composition. --Mosbatho (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to the ugly ceiling Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, normal good image. -- Karelj (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:З висоти.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2021 at 11:29:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Ukraine
Info created & uploaded by EnergyButterfly - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support english description added, though the file should also be renamed. --Ivar (talk) 12:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive color contrasts. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Ivar. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noice. SHB2000 (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the subject matter.--Peulle (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surprising color -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was a closeup of some unusual dessert at first ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Steve Jobs and Macintosh computer, January 1984, by Bernard Gotfryd- border cropped.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2021 at 15:49:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info Steve Jobs at the very beginning of the Mac era, with an original Macintosh 128K displaying its graphic capabilities. (Image on the Mac's screen is a derivative of Hashiguchi Goyo's "Woman Combing Her Hair")

Created by Bernard Gotfryd - retouched from the original .tif and uploaded by User:Infrogmation - nominated by DragonflySixtyseven -- DS (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- DS (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I nominated this file on September 26, but only remembered that I needed to add the nomination to the list on September 29, and nobody saw it. As such, I've changed the end of the voting period from October 5 to October 8; if you feel this is inappropriate, feel free to change it back. DS (talk) 17:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something went wrong with the digitization; parts of it are totally black, in a way that is clearly distinguishable from the non-black areas. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where? DS (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at his hair and suit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I bought one of these in 1984, a few months after it was released, when I was studying in America... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for one thing, lighting is so dark on one side of his face you can barely see it. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Seven Pandas and bad left crop --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others; he looks like a Bond villain here (which of course some people may see as entirely apt). Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I kinda like it. It's a very non-standard portrait (red background? wtf!) of a very much non-standard person. The whole thing feels fittingly awkward, like a single button mouse. But the digitization is less than perfect. The clipping blacks have already been mentioned, but there's also a lot of dirt in the top left corner. The shadow gradient at the right edge shows some serious posterization that's not there in the unedited .tif. And with the already very tight crop of the original, I don't think getting rid of the round corners by cropping even more is the way to go … (why does everything need to be squared anyway?) --El Grafo (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 02:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloem van een Astrantia major. 03-07-2021 (actm.).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2021 at 04:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Apiaceae (Carrot family)
Info Flower of a Astrantia major. Focus stack of 21 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very lovely shot. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 08:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice flower -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Apiaceae (Carrot family)

File:Steinpilz IMG 7999.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2021 at 12:25:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Fungi#Family_:_Boletaceae
Info created by Fischer.H - uploaded by Fischer.H - nominated by Fischer.H -- Fischer.H (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fischer.H (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite far below the high bar for fungi. Have a look at our collection, especially those by Holger Krisp. This one is covered by some twigs. The lighting isn't flattering. There's no lovely 3D feel like with Krisp's photos. And I assume you used a high ISO so you could hand hold the camera. The best photos have long exposure so presumably the camera is on a bag or other mount. -- Colin (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Fischer.H (talk) 08:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed seed boxes of a :Iris sibirica[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2021 at 04:48:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Iris sibirica. Focus stack of 18 photos.
Iris sibirica. Focus stack of 16 photos. Rotated 180 degrees.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Iridaceae
Info Closed seed boxes of a Iris sibirica.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both pictures are very nice and well done. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both pictures are too similar. Perform an axial symmetry of one of them and you get almost the same image left and right. Thus I don't see the point of a set in that case -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 2 photos are of the same seed boxes. The one from the "front". The other from the "back". There is a clear difference in the colours. This is because one side has always been in the sun and the other side has not. Personally, I like the different "earth colors".--Famberhorst (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imperceptible difference, and not a spectacular feature. What would show the 90° views? -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Basile. Let's please not have flowers/seeds/plants from different angles. The symmetry means there isn't really sufficient educational value in having the other side. Yes, few things are 100% symmetrical due to weather or wear and tear or just imperfect development. But in a lot of cases, there's likely more variation between specimens than there is between sides. Even things that aren't as symmetrical as a flower or seed, like a plant or tree or bush, there isn't anything fundamentally different between one side and the other side. A plant, for example, doesn't have a front or back. -- Colin (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile and Colin. Maybe nominate one separately? Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bumbu dan Rempah - rempah.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2021 at 11:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Spices
Info created by Galeri ega - uploaded by Galeri ega - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The middle is sharp but the rest is blurred. This may be intentional, but it doesn't work for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support it does lose some sharpness around the edges, but it's a nice arrangement otherwise well captured. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles. Also this mix of food doenst seem so nicely prepared. You should crop more to skeep empty space or put food all over to cover it. --Mile (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Rhododendrites. I really like how the colors are arranged --Kritzolina (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Kritzolina.--Señor Aluminio (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Rhododendrites and per Kritzolinas comment as well. -- Radomianin (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sort of overdoes it compositionally—the best food photography IMO tends towards the minimalist end—and per Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Rhododendrites and Kritzolina. --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed that it would be nice for more of this photo to be sharp, but some of everything is sharp enough and the composition is nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above and because I don't know what I'm looking at. There is not description in English and I don't know whether this shot was all set up by the photographer or was taken in a market or somewhere else. In addition I don't understand the composition, are those the ingredients of a special dish, typical products of a certain region or something else? Poco a poco (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Danu Widjajanto: Oh yes, Poco is absolutely right, please add a description in English (or French or Spanish, just some lingua franca) which explains what we are looking at and how these ingredients are related. This makes the photo much more useful. Thank you, --Aristeas (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Spices

File:Firenze - Vista dal Piazzale Michelangelo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2021 at 11:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by [[User:{{subst:PROPOLI87}}|]] -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As you know, this is an extremely famous view. For a photo of it to be featured, it would have to be much larger and also way sharper and less noisy than this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, not special enough. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Tries to do and be too much. Some individual parts might have been more worth the effort. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 07:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nighthawks by Edward Hopper.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2021 at 15:06:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Groups
Info created by Edward Hopper - Manualy stitched, uploaded, nominated by --Mile (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info It is originally stitched, compared to previous (20 Mpx) this is 64 Mpx; 86 MB vs 8,13 MB. This one is as shown in the Chicago museum.
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Commons:Picture of the Year/2020/R1/v/Nighthawks by Edward Hopper 1942.jpg. It might not be the best idea to nominate a delist and replace (as you should do when a new version is available) while people are voting on this for POTY 2020. It would be better to wait until the contest is over. Replacing an FP during the competition would be a nightmare for the code writers and rather confusing for voters. --Cart (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cart I know that. And would not replace it. But when i saw source isn't as picture shown i made this one. --Mile (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about you overwriting the existing FP, but the usual practice is that there should not be two FPs of the same painting. If a new one is made, like here, that version is usually put up for a "Delist and replace"-nomination (Example). If such a nom was successful during the POTY voting, it would mean that we would have to replace the current FP. That would be very messy. I leave it up to the FPC community to decide if we should have two FPs of this painting, but I would ask you not to make things difficult for the POTY voting, please. --Cart (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now per Cart, renominate as a D&R once POTY is over. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Iconic painting, thank you very much for the new reproduction! But we should not mess with POTY ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, It's one of my favorite paintings and I'm so happy that we have this new reproduction, it's just that the timing for presenting it is not ideal. --Cart (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, though it's not as good as Banksy's original --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk)
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It's a great photo of the painting and I look forward to seeing it here again after the POTY is done. :-) --Cart (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiburón azul (Prionace glauca) y submarinista, canal Fayal-Pico, islas Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-27, DD 08.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2021 at 16:46:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Carcharhinidae_(Requiem_Sharks)
Info Blue shark (Prionace glauca) being photographed by a fellow diver between the islands of Pico and Faial, Azores, Portugal. The blue shark is a species of en:requiem shark, in the family Carcharhinidae, that inhabits deep waters (images taken though between 5 and 10 meter below water) averaging around 3.1 m (10 ft) and preferring cooler waters. They can live up to 20 years, can move very quickly and feed primarily on small fish and squid, although they can take larger prey. I like the composition of this picture very much and yes, I'm aware that the diver could be sharper. The diver gives a sense of the size of the shark, is captured taking a shot of the shark at that precise moment (giving a lot of dynamic to the image) and the fact that there a no bubbles makes the picture more balanced and smooth. Let's see what you think. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support this but question about the saturation/contrast. Compare #07 and #09 taken seconds before and after, and others in this set. -- Colin (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for your feedback, let me give it a try this evening --Poco a poco (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colin I uploaded a new version, brighter and with less saturation Poco a poco (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support now thanks. -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately Poco a poco Colin, the reworking has introduced posterization bottom left. 08:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) [reply]
Will address this topic along with the right crop this evening --Poco a poco (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: New version uploaded Poco a poco (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Educative, but the framing is very tight at the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and no problem, will upload a new version with more crop on the right this evening, --Poco a poco (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Basile Morin: New version uploaded Poco a poco (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition --Milseburg (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply stunning. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe sharpening was overdone on diver, but his motion made pic more interesting than shark. --Mile (talk) 10:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Carcharhinidae_(Requiem_Sharks)

File:2021-07-16 Bahnradsport, Steherrennen, Oßwald Steher Cup 1DX 6750 by Stepro.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2021 at 03:48:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual sports
Info panned shot; created by, uploaded by and nominated by -- Stepro (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Stepro (talk) 03:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support They look too close together for safety, but this is an exciting, fine picture to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sport Very well done. Surprisingly sharp for a picture taken in movement -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Basile -- Radomianin (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Basile --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job Poco a poco (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Individual sports

File:Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar, India.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2021 at 07:48:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#India
Info created by Dey.sandip - uploaded by Dey.sandip - nominated by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I said "Wow" at the thumbnail and quite like the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking image.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is such a great place, which gets even better when you add people to it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:54, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another picture that has that National Geographic quality to it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts and Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel: National Geographic quality. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gathering of Four Buddhas - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2021 at 14:04:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Buddhism
Info created by anonymous painter in Joseon dynasty - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 14:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 14:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this work, especially the ogres, and this is an excellent photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed and a valuable contribution. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Religion#Buddhism

File:창덕궁 금천교 근경.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2021 at 14:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#South Korea
Info created by Cultural Heritage Administration - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 14:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 14:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced composition with a cut tree at the left and too much space at the bottom. Also the subject is not special enough (no wow) -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --Peulle (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea but sorry, this is rather a random framing than a carefully done composition. Not even showing the entire subject, with too much empty foreground and most objects cut off. --Kreuz schnabel 08:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In addition to other complaints about composition, it does not appear as if the graduated filter was adequately compensated for. Daniel Case (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pantheon of Rakovski - Kotel.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2021 at 17:52:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Bulgaria
Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 17:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff 17:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The clouds are nice, but the lighting and composition are not too interesting. Also 6 MP is a bit on the smaller side for architecture candidates in 2021. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. Ugly building in the foreground, IMO; the building in the background might be a lot more interesting to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry, but I guess this is one of the cases where “the beauty is in the eye of the viewer” (as a German idiom says). If somebody knows and admires Rakovski, this is an important place and one may appreciate the boldness of the brutalist monument; else one just sees a monument of questionable beauty in harsh light. --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the building could work, but the background is just too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. SHB2000 (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --MrPanyGoff 11:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Makadi Spa Hurghada.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2021 at 11:21:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Egypt
Info created by jonie148 - uploaded by jonie148 - nominated by jonie148 -- Jonie148 (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jonie148 (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but it would unlikely pass the quality image review. It's noisy and lacks sharpness. --A.Savin 12:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Very nice idea for an eye-catcher. But unfortunately the qualitative defects are outweighing. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support: You guys really think this would fail CR in QIC? Granted, it looks oversharpened on my 23.5-inch monitor, but it looks good and maybe just a tad overexposed on my 13-inch monitor, and moreover, it's beautiful and striking. I dissent from you guys' opinion about this. I guess I'm not totally sure it should be featured, but I think pixel-peeping to this extent on such a big monitor might not be the best yardstick - it's impressive when photos look totally great at that size, but we've featured plenty of photos that are a little fuzzy or noisy when they're blown up that big. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dear Ikan, thank you for reminding the rule to prefer the wow effect over the technical quality for the FP program. And this image has a wow. I reviewed the photo in Photoshop with 100% view on a 23 inch monitor. Maybe my decision was too strict, but I missed the fine image details in this view. I will reconsider my voting. Many regards. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I carefully reviewed the photo again. It is IMHO really a good composition except the missing fine image details and the crooked upper and right line of the window niche. I want to keep my current evaluation. Many regards. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dragonfly Porto Covo August 2021-4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2021 at 14:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Info A female Vagrant Emperor dragonfly (Anax ephippiger), found on the west coast of Portugal during Summer. A large dragonfly (about 70 mm long) and a long-distance migrant, probably originated in sub-Saharan Africa. Wings are transparent, with a yellow patch, and abdominal segment 2 is bright blue in males and variable in females. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hanooz 18:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would have expected abdomen in focus with F16. Background not for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome back to FPC, Alvesgaspar! --Aristeas (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Aristeas! But I won't probably stay long, real life demands my full attention!... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alvesgaspar, you have my full understanding, of course! At the same time it’s a pity because I really miss your photos here ;–). Many of your FPs are really outstanding, especially the ones that feature the beauty of minimalism … All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you again, Aristeas! We have been both here for more than 15 years, and the technical quality of the photos have improved dramatically during this period. A possible perverse effect of such improvement is, imho, the exaggerated attention to technical perfection, sometimes driving the reviewers to forget about the subject, composition, etc. while pixel-peeking into the minute details of the images, looking for sins. But we have also enjoyed from the talent of many users, some of them no longer here. By the way, what are you waiting for nominating this image ? -- All best, Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, Alvesgaspar, and sorry for the long delay – I was so busy to get uploaded some images for WLM ;–). I am glad that you like that photo. Well, I am not sure if it has a chance here. But with your backing I will give it a try – thank you again! All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata#Family : Aeshnidae (Hawker Dragonflies)

File:Giechburg Luftaufnahme-20210614-RM-212813.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2021 at 16:39:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info created & uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom Tomer T. --Ermell (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice but more sky would improve the composition, in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts as well as Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Alexander-93 (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little ragged in some places, but on the whole quite good for a drone photo. Also, +1 to Basile's suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 00:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support More sky would be nice, but still very good and beautiful. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent drone photo, really nice light and composition. Cmao20 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Golden Gate Bridge, North view.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2021 at 19:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Golden_Gate_Bridge,_San_Francisco
Info The Bridge partially covered in fog. I like this picture very much, because it shows the typical fog in SF. While the north tower is bathed in evening light, the south tower is almost completely shrouded. Created, uploaded and nominated by Radomianin -- Radomianin (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is indeed a very typical view of the Golden Gate Bridge; if anything, the fog often covers more of the bridge. But that doesn't make it a great composition to me. The fog serves to me as a virtual block on eye movement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek SHB2000 (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have quite some FPs of that great bridge, about 4 with fog, but none of them offers the impression that the bridge seems to lead right into the clouds, as this one does, so this image still tells something new to me ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special picture to me, per nomination and per Aristeas -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral What a pity that the base of the pillar is cut off --Llez (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Llez. Yes, really a pity. Even in the uncropped version it is the visible lower end of the picture. I checked the others in this series, the rock almost completely hid the base. I think my camera position was about the same as in this photo. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very regretful weak oppose So well-done technically, but unfortunately we have a lot of pictures of this bridge—so many that there's even a category for this particular viewpoint—and this doesn't stand out enough. i.e. it doesn't make me think I've never seen this bridge before. Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still like the photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --El Grafo (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ikan, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo but I honestly don't think we need another FP of the Golden Gate Bridge from the same old position. Cmao20 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teele Wali Masjid-Lucknow-Uttar Pradesh-DSC 0001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2021 at 13:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#India
Info This place is not well documented. To my knowledge, this photo is one of the very few (perhaps the only one) that document the interior of this beautiful mosque. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info All by me -- Dey.sandip (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support: Some comparable photos are sharper than this one is in some places, but it's quite beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the figure in the middle. Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry child. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A little bit of motion blur is there, but its such a small portion of the frame. And that's really a reason to oppose !! I hope you understand that this photograph is not about the child, that's a reference to provide some scale. Some reasons are well, just plain bizarre or laughable. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentPlease don't call my comments 'plain bizarre or laughable'. And please don't patronize me and tell me how to 'see' your image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I am not telling you how to see my image. The same applies to your comment as well. Please don't ask me how to interpret or call your comment. If I feel its laughable, then I would stick to it -- Dey.sandip (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charlesjsharp. Wrt Dey.sandip's argument, the child is not merely a small reference to provide some scale but pretty much the centerpiece; along the central line in the otherwise only empty space. To me the child does not enhance the picture but does the contrary by removing an otherwise serene atmosphere, and the blur just makes it worse. --Trougnouf (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moral Support. Have refined the gallery link: the photo fits even better into the gallery for interiors of religions buildings. --Aristeas (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Trougnouf. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Througnouf, as well, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Trougnouf -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Train passing at Garibaldi station, Naples, Italy (PPL3-Altered) julesvernex2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2021 at 14:29:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Train_stations
Info all by Julesvernex2
Info Taken at the gritty and chaotic Garibaldi station, in Naples. I like that the image is about people (something I rarely manage to do), I like there is plenty to explore (e.g. the couple kissing, the old gentleman tourist squinting at his guide, the sea of cigarette butts by the tracks), and I like how the slow shutter speed gives a sense of movement to the train and those walking by. I'm not crazy about the left crop, and I cloned out half a person from the right (personally I don't have an issue with cloning, as long as it is documented, but some may disagree). Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this photo: The subtly told stories on the platform makes it special; and the central perspective of the ceiling construction gives the picture a good dynamic. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Option to crop it above, to get rid of lights ? --Mile (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mile. While I was editing the image I considered a crop very similar to the one you propose, but found that it took away the ceiling's leading lines that draw the eye to the people and passing train. I also like how the outermost leading lines end right at the corner of the frame (I find myself often doing this in wide angle shots e.g. here, here or here) Julesvernex2 (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried, i croped just lights, so narrower crop than proposed. It works better to me. --Mile (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Radomianin. Good colours, and the composition is much more thoughtful than one may think at the first glance; the diagonals ending exactly in the corners add depth to it, and the postures of the various couples and singles look like various scenes from a stageplay. --Aristeas (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred person in foreground - may be intended - but doesn't work for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Radiomanin and Aristeas. Works best as street photography. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a good attempt, though I wish there was more separation between the persons. There is some dynamism here, and it's not always easy to create dynamic pictures. Just happy to see something different than what is normally on offer in FPC and I like the fact the photographer has not gone crazy about tack sharpness or clinical crops or other such debatable technical things and tried to convey a feel for a change -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It has bits of goodness, as noted, but also weaknesses too (blurred prominent figures, boring ceiling. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. -- Karelj (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Charles here Poco a poco (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 22:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dendrocygne fauve (Dendrocygna bicolor).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2021 at 11:44:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Dendrocygna
Info Fulvous whistling duck (Dendrocygna bicolor), Parrot World, France. All by me. -- Clément Bardot (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Clément Bardot (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems fine for me--Alexander-93 (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quack. Gallery link fixed ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought at first it was another one of Rhododendrites from the parks of Brooklyn ... but that bird looked very unfamiliar. Daniel Case (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can you tell whether it's male or female? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quack. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo Cmao20 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Dendrocygna

File:Morena negra (Muraena augusti), Monte da Guia, isla de Fayal, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-26, DD 40.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2021 at 10:16:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Muraenidae_(Moray_Eels)
Info Moray eel (Muraena augusti), Monte da Guia, Faial Island, Azores, Portugal. It belongs to the family of moray eel and is endemic of the Canary Islands, Madeira and Azores. It is non-migratory, and dwells at a depth range of 0 to 250 metres (0 to 820 ft), most often at around 0 to 50 metres (0 to 164 ft). It is active during the night and hides in holes or crevices during the day. It can reach up to 100 centimetres (39 in) length and is a carnivore that feeds on small fishes, shrimps and crabs. Like all other moray eels their vision is poor but their sense of smell extraordinary. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support He looks worried... --GRDN711 (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this image has only 3,2 megapixels out of 50,6 MP camera (ca 94% down). Imo it has to be very extraordinary to justify such a reduction, but sadly I can't see it. --Ivar (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ivar: I'd like to see how brave you are down there, do you thing I can use a 200 mm below the water? I can upload the full 50 MPx with lots of interesting crop around it, because I just couldn't/shouldn't get closer --Poco a poco (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support See the thing in the reef, with the big shiny teeth, that's a moray... Put your hand in the crack, and you won't get it back, from a moray... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KoH: you nailed it, it's frustrating to read often comments that assume that you have the same possibilites over the water than below it. That goes from the mobility over visiblity to equipment constraings or lighting. --Poco a poco (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar. --Mile (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Considering this is underwater photography in low light, I think this striking image deserves a feature. KoH, I usually expect that kind of humor from Daniel. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture and a valuable contribution. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is not always a challenge to get closer to moray eels and the danger is minimal. This is too small for me and the definition not so good. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp can we please forward this theoretical discussion to a more realistic one? you have 2 ways to photograph something like this: 1) go for a macro lens port and get very close to the moray, I have such a port for my 100mm but I wouldn't get that close (I would preset the lens to a range of 20cm-50cm, that's the way to get detail, which you cannot change under the water anymore) or 2) you can use a wide lens port, like the one I used here for 35 mm and got somewhere between 100-200 cm away from the moray, this is the result. I cannot go underwater with my e.g. 28-300 mm lens, there are no lens ports for that, so the choices are very limited and not comparable to what most the people know. I cannot change ports or lenses under the water and as you know this is wildlife, get to the spot 5 times to see the moray only once. Poco a poco (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, I have no expertise at all in underwater photography but I am an experienced diver. I have had many encounters with morays over the years and had I had a camera could have snapped good images. Morays seldom exit their holes and are usually easy for repeat sightings. They are not known to be aggressive towards divers. What sort of lens would have been used for this image? Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is what happens when you use a 16mm lens on a full frame camera. Hmm. I wonder what you get if you use a 35mm lens? Well Poco should know because he took this, this, this and this the previous year. All around 12 MP, not 3MP like we have here. All with much more detail and more animal visible. The first of these was promoted to FP in August 2020.

I get that this one has some dramatic darkness to it, but it is still just a very soft 3MP and if I draw a box round the visible animal, I get 0.5MP. If we pretend this is "Featured Thumbnail" for a moment, then this black moray is great with lots of detail and animal behaviour on show.

There are other morays on Commons such as this laced moray (8MP), fimbriated moray (7MP), a spotted one (6MP) and ribbon moray (11 MP, and taken with a Canon Powershot). We have an FP ribbon moray (3.9MP) from 2013 taken with a Canon Rebel. And this fabulous green moray (5MP) also from 2013 and taken with a Canon Powershot.

So why in 2021 should we accept a tiny 0.5MP image of a moray's head taken with $$$$ professional equipment when we've had better larger photos taken with consumer compact cameras? I get that it is impossible to change lens underwater, but plenty of us have been in situations where the ideal lens was at home, and you don't see Charles asking us to accept a blurry 0.5MP butterfly because he left his macro lens on the shelf and only had his ultra-wide on him. And, you know, there are plenty here who simply don't have the $$$$ to buy better equipment to reach FP standard for some of the photos they take, and just accept that. Perhaps I should nominate a mobile phone photo with a "Sorry, I left my Leica at home" excuse.

There are LOTS of really striking images on Commons that are only a few MP. Are the supporters of this one happy to drop the standards for all those, or is it just Poco's nominations that get a special pass? -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:F-16 engine test.jpg, which is currently getting all its 30 million pixels pixel-peeped (compare it at 3MP with the above). Maybe Senior Airman Kevin Long should remind that none of us are experienced fighter pilots, and that Commons has no other photos of F-16 engines firing! -- Colin (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are not judging other images in terms of FPC, some of them look good, but that doesn't mean that this one isn't deserving the star. Indeed, some of those images come from experienced and skilled people outside of the movement with great archives that sharie some of their works with a free license, others are taken though in an aquarium. I'm sure that Charles will agree with me that taking a zoo picture is not similar to take one in a safari in Madagascar or South Africa, the same applies to an aquarium, and not to mention ethical aspects.

Same applies to images with more modest equipment, sure, why not? place, time, skills, etc. do play a role, photography is not mathematics.

No, I don't need a special pass, and I hope everybody judges this image as it is, still I will not get too close to a black moray just because others did. Poco a poco (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, the fact that other images were taken by non-Commoners is not a factor in FPC judging rules. Indeed, we very typically review such images more harshly than those by Commoners and they are much less likely to be nominated in the first place. None of the better images I linked to are taken in an aquarium, so that claim of yours is false. Your complaint about getting close to a moray is baseless, because you yourself have taken higher resolution images when you had a more appropriate lens on your camera. The real reason this image is so tiny and soft is that you had an ultra-wide lens on. At the FPC talk page, one reviewer claimed that for technical quality they expected "state-of-the-art image quality" at FPC, and they do indeed frequently pixel peep 24+MP images. But better and much higher resolution images have been taken and uploaded, at sea, with cheap compact cameras eight years ago... It is clear this does not represent a high level for technical quality, and at around 0.5MP for the creature, is an image with limited usability beyond web thumbnail. Not our finest. -- Colin (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are more issues at play here. Colin's assessment is good from a photographic perspective, but can I add another. Diego was, until recently, a self-acknowledged novice diver learning about underwater photography. Novice divers (and those they dive with) cannot control their buoyancy as well as experienced divers. Expert buoyancy control is essential to get close to marine life without damaging coral and scaring animals. Carrying a camera must make this even more of a challenge. Novice divers, and those they dive with, stir up silt from the bottom and this affects visibility. Finally, the finest underwater shots are taken in tropical locations at the perfect time of year with no plankton. You just don't get these conditions in the Atlantic. And the best shots are taken in really shallow water where the light is good. And I have dived with expert photographers who possess much more sophisticated technical set-ups. On land, we have had many years and many opportunities to perfect our skills and still struggle to get it right. There could be a drop in the credibility of FP if Diego's worthy images are promoted simply because they are better than other underwater shots we have on the site to compare them with. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp, I agree with you in mostly everything, bouyancy is a key and as you guess, it is more challenging with a big camera that needs own weights. At the begining it was a big issue and it didn't help me that I always insisted to have the camera with me, but the advantage was that later I didn't have to learn again how to deal with the camera. I guess that I needed about 30 to 40 hours diving to move gently in the water thanks to a good bouyancy. My only problem now is that if I go without a camera I don't know what to do with my hands :) I always try to go diving alone with an instructor, who are always experienced to avoid the risk of even worse visibility due to stired up silt. In fact, it's tricky to go with a group because they would always have to wait for me. I also agree with your comments regarding the Atlantic, but the fauna you find here and in the Caribbean or far Asia is different, so it still makes sense to try it hard in Europe IMHO (furthermore traveling far away is still an issue with COVID). And of course, shallow transparent waters where you find a lot of fauna would be a dream. Instead, I need different lighting sets and other stuff and have no place anymore for underwear in my suitcase. :)

One last statement about Colin's $$$$ comments above. As said, expensive equipment is not a guarantee for anything and you can get a great shot which far less money, we all agree on that, but I don't think that it is per se wrong. In general, if you have a clue about photography you should get better results with better equipment. I believe, that the movement should be happy about it, if I spend my money traveling to many places with expensive photo equipment and document all I see, and at the same time live in a tiny rented apartment. Seeing so many dollar signs somebody could believe I'm a rich guy throwing money through the window, but in fact that money is missed somwhere else... Poco a poco (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact remains that the previous year Poco took several photos of a moray eel that are significantly higher resolution, far more detailed, display more of the animal features. So lets forget the beginner/expert factor or the clear Maldives or plankton and scary biting animals and just consider that compared to last year, the lens you had was not appropriate for detailed photos of small creatures. We are here to judge whether this is among the finest images on Commons, not to give Poco gold stars as a reward for learning to dive with a camera, or to make allowances for him still being a beginner diver. That's what barnstars and other personal messages are for. As I said, there are dramatic aspects to this image that look good on the wee thumbnail we have at FPC. Anyone here got a voting history that suggests they would support a 3MP (and 0.5MP subject) image like this from a non-commoner, or indeed, from just about anyone else but Poco? Confident that you've never opposed a 14MP underwater image for sharpness that looks just fine at 3MP? -- Colin (talk) 16:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support An impressive image despite the obvious quality shortcomings. Would it be possible to get a comparable shot with better quality? Probably, but let us concentrate our attention on the present one and acknowledge its magical touch. That is what the best FPs are about. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Poco, have you tried bringing a smaller 1" camera like a RX10? you'd get longer reach and probably a similar quality. You seem to be into water photography, so maybe worth an investment. - Benh (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Benh, thanks for the hint, will look into it. Still, to be honest, I haven't started to look for other alternatives seriously and would still like to stick the Canon 5DS. Indeed I just got a ring light for the macro lens port, let's see how it works. My only problem is that I live 6 hours drive away from the closest sea and not precisely warm until next summer. Poco a poco (talk) 12:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move closer to the sea and work from home ;) (just kidding, maybe you can't WFH nor moving is an easy decision ;) )- Benh (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm indeed thinking about that, we'll see --Poco a poco (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit dark and low resolution but mitigated by technical challenges, also nice and sharp, and I like the composition. Cmao20 (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish#Family_:_Muraenidae_(Moray_Eels)

File:Crystal Mill Power Plant.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2021 at 06:29:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#United States
Info created and uploaded by StaticSparks - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It's a very nice image, though the 8 MP resolution could be better. We have an existing FP which is 30 MP, though it is far from sharp at pixel level. Still, the difference in composition and lighting is sufficient for me to accept two FPs of the same subject; this one has a more tranquil, less in-your-face feeling. We also have some very high-quality photos by Carol Highsmith, but they lack the magic of the golden aspens. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is one of the problems with WLM in countries with plenty photographers. We often get images that don't add a lot to our existing collection. Yes we have six excellent, high-resolution (48MP) sharp photos by Carol Highsmith and an excellent FP. This slightly soft 7MP image might have golden trees, but so does the better FP (which really glow in that photo), and the difference in light here is due to it being overcast (hence the photographer has chosen not to include the sky). This Highsmith is from the same viewpoint but includes much more context surroundings, and has lovely summer sky. The hard sunlight in that photo highlight the 3D of the rocks and wooden structures. This photo here just seems like any ordinary tourist snap on an overcast day. -- Colin (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Photoshopped. Big cloning problem at the bottom right corner -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Bottom right looks not natural, sharpness could be better. --XRay 💬 13:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but a bit lacking in definition at full size. I think the other FP is better. Cmao20 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and Basile. Per the former, looks more like a photographed painting or illustration, and per the latter ... OUCH! Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --IamMM (talk) 19:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:MiG-21PF - Seminarska Street - Kharkiv (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2021 at 22:00:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air transport#Military jet aircraft
Info all by Lystopad. -- Lystopad (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as creator. -- Lystopad (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This works better than I thought it would from the thumbnail. I like the incongruity of the ordinary scene, albeit of a pleasantly tree-lined street, and the statue of the rocket. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light. Awkward composition with a distracting shadow at the bottom right. The picture does not look special in any way -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Fischer.H (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Does improve a bit when looked at in full-res, but still not enough for FP IMO. Composition is just too busy to work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Good quality and a clear QI with an interesting subject, but I miss an outstanding composition Cmao20 (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fresco "Dogradnja Hipotekarne banke".jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2021 at 09:15:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Frescos and murals
Info Fresco "Building of Hipotekarna Bank", created by Mladen Josić (1932, Kingdom of Yugoslavia). Photo, upload, nominate by -- Mile (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At 6MP, it is a bit low in detail for an FP painting. You can see from the close-up version that the fine detail is missing. -- Colin (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Very little creativity goes into the reproduction of a painting, so necessarily they must compete primarily on technical superiority. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Colin, it would have to be twice this size for me to support an image that can easily be reproduced like this. Cmao20 (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Will try to reshot. --Mile (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo August 2021-4.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2021 at 18:53:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry
Info Aerial photo of a disactivated coal powerplant in Sines, west coast Portugal. I like the dramatic effect of the chimney, enhanced by the strong shadows, soft colours and desolate view. This is one of those cases where the less-than-optimal image quality may be mitigated by the eye-catching composition. All by Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the most pleasing composition/lighting. The buildings are cut off in awkward places, and the shadows don't really contribute to a cohesive message for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Understand King’s comment, especially about the crop, but I am still wowed by this incredible perspective. The earthy colours and the overall impression of desolation are also very good. --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Light is hard. If you are banking on contrast, why not try B/W? Compositionally, this is rather tight. A wider perspective with softer light (softer shadows) may have produced better colors and the desolate feel, IMHO -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per King. I see what you were trying for but it didn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, crop just too awkward. If the near chimney opening would be more towards the lower left corner to leave more place for the distant one, it might work much better, but this is just too unbalanced. --Kreuz schnabel 09:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this case the unusual crops and harsh contrast actually work well for me. I agree that black and white might be a good idea. Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I agree with the critics and will make another try when possible -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altenburg Luftaufnahme-20210523-RM-205559.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2021 at 09:20:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info Aerial view of Altenburg castle in Bamberg, Germany during sunset. Created and uploaded by Ermell – nominated by me, --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I saw this photo I knew I had to nominate it ;–). So much atmosphere! I was flabbergasted how Ermell has mastered to position the drone in the right moment exactly so that the sinking sun is shining through the windows of the tower. And at the same time it is a very valuable overview of the castle and it’s situation. For a drone photo taken in that difficult contre-jour situation, the technical quality is really good. --Aristeas (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe sharpening has gone a bit too far, but nevertheless FP to me. --Ivar (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral This picture transmits a feeling of artificiality, owing to the overall greenish tone. It could be that these colours are natural, but I very much doubt it. Look, for example at the sky and the upper part of the walls. I suppose it can be fixed though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your review! I did consider the greenish tone of the walls as natural because walls in the shadow often have not only a bluish, but also a little greenish tint; probably the effect is emphasized here by the contrast with the bright red/yellow colours of the sunset. However a little test shows that moving the colour balance by about 10% from green towards magenta may actually improve the image (of course that makes the sunset even more shining ;–). I guess that Ermell will come up with a real solution and ask for your patience. Sorry that I could not resist nominating this image as soon as I saw it ;–). Thank you all, --Aristeas (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Aristeas (talk) and also with Alvesgaspar (talk). Fantastic and it´s the perfect moment, but the white balance is too green and the color too saturated. I vote with pro when this is fixed. Je-str (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Most well-done aerial shots look good, partly because we are not used to see such things. This one is a fine photo from that perspective. But this one looks over-processed to me, which makes me withhold for now -- Dey.sandip (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fresh leaves always look oversaturated at this time of year. I have reduced the green a little and hope that is ok. Thank you very much for your support.--Ermell (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ermell: I don't think doing a selective saturation reduction on the greens is the right move here. You can still see the green tint at the top of the sky, which shouldn't be this color. I would shift the WB more towards the magenta side, and maybe saturation won't need to be reduced by so much as a result. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Info @King of Hearts: @Dey.sandip: @Iifar: @Alvesgaspar: I have corrected the WB and reduced the sharpening a bit. Thanks for your support again.--Ermell (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Ivar (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Looks better than before. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good again, I shall have to have a look at your drone photos and see what else might be FP Cmao20 (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bloem van een herfstaster. 30-09-2021. (d.j.b).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2021 at 06:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Flower of an autumn aster. Focus stack of 41 photos. A beautiful, strong, high autumn aster (~140 cm. high).
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful, right in time for the autumn! There are some little cloning/copy errors at the bottom, please see the image note on the nomination page; I am sure you will fix them. --Aristeas (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. correction. Thank you for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. --Ivar (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 19:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Hausdülmen, Heubach -- 2021 -- 4583.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2021 at 08:53:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#North_Rhine-Westphalia
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 08:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you to Ikan Kekek for his suggestion to improve this image. --XRay 💬 08:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 08:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support To be fair, I didn't suggest any improvements; I just said it was lovely and asked whether an FPC nomination would be a good idea. Looking at this photo gives me such a sense of peace. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Burnt sky, dull light and bland colors, nothing special here in my view. Sorry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the sky isn't burned out. It's just fog. --XRay 💬 03:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks full white, and the branches center left are also burnt. Perhaps fixable from the RAW, though I'm not sure to change my vote, due to the colors I'm not keen on. Quite ordinary landscape from my point of view -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Painterly. Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --Peulle (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. -- Karelj (talk) 05:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sad this one seems likely not to pass, I really like the composition and I find that the curve of the river leads the eye effectively into the frame. Lovely light. Cmao20 (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hamburg Moorburg Kirche St. Maria-Magdalena 10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2021 at 10:31:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created by Dirtsc - uploaded by Dirtsc - nominated by Dirtsc -- Dirtsc (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dirtsc (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharp photo, but no wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I was heading for support until I looked at the trees on the left. Unforgivably unsharp for an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Peulle (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Daniel Case. Left part entirely ooF, including the tower. Have the lens serviced, there’s something wrong with it. --Kreuz schnabel 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had the same idea as Kreuz – at the left I cannot spot the focal plane at all, neither the foreground (gravestone) nor the middleground (church) or background (trees) is in focus. I fear the lens needs help, sorry. That’s very annoying for you, but it happens (I had to try 3 copies of a certain highly praised lens before I found one which worked reasonably well). Another possibility is that the lens mount on the camera is not correctly aligned with the sensor; in extreme cases this can cause similiar problems, but fortunately that problem is rarer. --Aristeas (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Good enough in the 'wow' stakes for me, I think it's the perfect angle to capture the church from, but the bottom left corner is too unsharp IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ilsfeld - Schozach - Schozacher Höhe - Birke vor Sonnenuntergangs-Himmel (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2021 at 09:29:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Betulaceae
Info Landmark birch on the Schozacher Höhe in Ilsfeld, Germany, during a sunset in January. All by me, --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks to Alvesgaspar for suggesting to nominate this photo! --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, a classic! I don't know why, this solitary tree with naked branches transmits to me a feeling of desolation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the mood of this scenery. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The patterns in the tree are very pleasing. I wish that was highlighted more (may be walking towards the tree a bit more) --Dey.sandip (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment! I could not get closer to the tree because there were many cars passing on that road, and going to the left or right made the lighting of the tree worse (I tried it). So I framed the tree before the sunset sky. --Aristeas (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd wish less noise, but still very good. --A.Savin 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support per A.Savin. Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I mag Schozich... -- -donald- (talk) 06:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great to meet here someone who knows that nice village, -donald- ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shapes and colours Cmao20 (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 27 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Espirógrafo (Serpula vermicularis), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-31, DD 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2021 at 06:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Polychaeta
Info Ca. 5 centimetres (2.0 in) small Serpula vermicularis, Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal. Serpula vermicularis is not a flower, plant or a coral but a segmented marine polychaete worm. Yes, a worm in the family Serpulidae that lives in a tube into which it can retract. Serpula vermicularis is a filter feeder and extends its radioles to catch phytoplankton and detritus. If you approach to them they retract instantly. The tube where the worm lives is calcareous and is attached to a rock, boulder or other hard surface and has a length of 20 centimetres (7.9 in), but is usually shorter than this. The tube is built by the worm using calcium stored in two white sacs on the ventral side of the second segment, or peristomium. The tube is fabricated by the glandular ventral shields on the other thoracic segments, where calcium is mixed with an organic secretion to make a paste. This is formed into shape by a collar found just behind the first segment, the prostomium. The anterior part of the worm protrudes from the tube and has a plume of about 40 feather-like radioles projecting from the peristomium, which also houses the two eyes and the mouth. A funnel-shaped lid or operculum covers the entrance to the tube when the animal retracts inside. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Small picture, ~~does it meet the 6MP requirement ?~~ Also, right now it looks soft to me around the edges and corners -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know 2 MPix requirement. -- -donald- (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Small (3.6MP) and so soft it seems almost to have been upscaled. Quite a lot of what we see is blurred, for whatever reason. Importantly, this is a tube worm, and we can't see anything recognisable as a tube, which greatly reduces the EV. It is a bit like one of those close-up photo quizzes where contestants are asked "What on earth is this?" and the photo zooms out to include more or better examples of the subject. Compare File:Serpula vermicularis 1.jpg which although also small, has sharp detail of the head, a good amount of the tube too, and is clearly and obviously a tube worm. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colin, Dey.sandip. No, the image hasn't been upscaled, in fact, I've never upscaled any of the over 20,000 images I've uploaded on Commons. I've increased now the sharpness/clarity and the crop, which was a bit tight as it seems to be a major success factor here (offering now 5,6 MP). Is there a rule about 6 MP? I haven't heard about that and I cannot find anything here. Getting detail of these things is really tricky, they are very shy, Charles can confirm it, and vanish in 1 msec. The feedback regarding the missing tube is fair. I do see detail here but there is of a shallow DoF, too. I've been thinking about nominating this 2 images (1, 2) as a set, what do you think? Poco a poco (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they withdraw rapidly when threatened. Ones I've seen soon come out again, but they could be different family. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I didn't think you would upscale, but there really isn't any pixel-level detail in many of these shots, which is a problem if you are only offering 3MP to begin win. I wonder if your shutter speed is too low. 1/200 (and 1/250 in your linked examples), for shooting moving wildlife seems too slow. DoF could also, I agree, be an issue, but I can't really say I found any part to have detail that wasn't several pixels wide. Wrt the linked pair, I'm not keen on set nominations becoming a poor man's video. I know the set rules allow a sequence of frames but I think there has to be a purpose behind freezing the frames for close study rather than simply offering what could be two frames of a better video. For the open frame, you can see a little hairy plant/creature above the tube is quite sharp. But the tube is mostly completely out of focus, and the worm head is soft again likely due to motion. For the closed frame, the focus seems to be slightly in front of the tube, and the head is quite out of focus with just sharpening artefacts. I'm sure you are pleased to have captured a specimen but I think you do need to consider the usual FP aspects of "wow" regarding the whole image and photographic aspects like composition, subject-isolation, lighting. Compare your File:Gusano de fuego (Hermodice carunculata), Madeira, Portugal, 2019-05-31, DD 45.jpg where the animal stands out immediately from the surroundings, and is snaking through the frame. Or compare File:Spirobranchus giganteus (Christmastree Worm - yellow variation).jpg and tell me your reaction on seeing that isn't "ooooh". The light and colours and pretty christmas-tree form jump out at you. That's what FP should be about, rather than a photo that is more: I managed to get it all in the frame, bits of it are in focus, and we don't have anything better on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support For such a small subject it is justified,in my opinion --Co mmon ists 19:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Commonists, I don't think this one of your best underwater pics though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of wow (at least for me) is one my best underwater pics, I believe, and yes, quality could be higher but it's still a small and shy animal, Poco a poco (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak regretful oppose I can see what you were getting at but it just doesn't stand out enough from other underwater images you and others have taken. Definitely a VI candidate, though. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Ivar (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unclear subject. Too many parts out of focus. Small size, lack of details -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sphalerite - Creede, Mineral County, Colorado, USA.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2021 at 13:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Rocks_and_minerals#Minerals
Info all by Ivar (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. It’s fascinating to look at all the details and features of the surface. --Aristeas (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Trougnouf (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cappella Piccolomini partenza Basilea Pinturicchio Siena.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2021 at 06:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Did you get special permission to photograph off-hours, or are crowds down drastically because of COVID? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was very crowded but the paintings are above the heads. Thanks for the support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have admired these frescoes in situ, but your photo reveals much more details than I could see there and allows to study the composition in peace. --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 19:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Typical massive resolution from you, and very beautiful Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Siirski (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity

File:Crested Tern - Mortimer Bay.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2021 at 16:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Thalasseus
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Ivar (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture and a pleasing background for the image. -- Radomianin (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes indeed. -- Colin (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but not enough definition for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the best quality, but the wow factor more than makes up for it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 06:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A magic picture despite the less-than-optimal image quality. Once again, this is what FPs are about -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Scenic. --Mile (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too much magic, too few flaws to complain. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 23:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel --Aristeas (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd crop out the bottom bit with the darker gradient though, what does it add? Cmao20 (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moscow Spiridonovka Tarasov Mansion asv2021-07 img21.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2021 at 15:40:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Other ceilings
Info Wooden ceiling above the main staircase of Tarasov House (a Neo-Renaissance mansion built by Zholtovsky in 1912) in Moscow --- all by A.Savin --A.Savin 15:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very impressive ceiling. --Aristeas (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pattern, well captured. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support More than nice. SHB2000 (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Colin (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 19:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support— Sadopaul 💬 📁 09:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salome with the Baptist's head - Charles Mellin.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2021 at 14:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 14:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 14:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It‘s always difficult to assess the colour balance of photos of paintings; so I will just assume that Mellin used a yellowish skin colour, it’s not that uncommon. --Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 10:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exquisite. Cmao20 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity

Info Demoted/delisted to not featured per this and that discussion. --A.Savin 18:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reichstagsgebäude von Westen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2021 at 10:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info Reichstag building, Berlin, Germany. Sun comes out after dark clouds passing by. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I actually thought by now, the ugly entrance pavilion at the right has made it impossible for anyone to shoot an FP of the Reichstag's west side. --A.Savin 12:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak support dramatic view with a lot of political connotations - could be a bit more centered though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:58, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good photo but it disturbs me too much that it's not centred. Cmao20 (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best Reichstag photos I have ever seen, realistic and impressive at the same time, and most of the ugly buildings at the right is hidden by the clever composition. --Aristeas (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin F. and Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 11:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bumbu Rawon.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2021 at 10:04:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Spices
Info created by Herusutimbul - uploaded by Herusutimbul - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs CA removal on the left spoon, and the salt is overexposed. --A.Savin 12:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The salt is merely bright, not overexposed - not a single pixel is clipped. The overall palate is already on the darker side so I wouldn't reduce the exposure one bit. But CA does need to be removed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice arrangement. Cmao20 (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending CA removal. Once done, I am likely to Support. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Herusutimbul, Danu Widjajanto, A.Savin, and Daniel Case: I have reduced the CAs on the spoon; please have a look if you like the new version. Intentionally no other changes. — Disclaimer: I am aware of COM:OVERWRITE, but in the FPC discussions it is generally recommended not to create a separate file if the changes are very minor. IMHO it would be much better if the photographer did such changes on the base of the original raw image file, but often photographers who are not FPC regulars do not respond to such requests. Therefore I have changed the file in order to avoid that the FP nomination fails just because of that obvious, but simple technical error. Hope it helps, --Aristeas (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. Technically not perfect, but well done and indeed a very nice arrangement. --Aristeas (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aristeas thank you so much for your kind help in removing the chromatic aberration, I really appreciate it. Danu Widjajanto (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done , Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Too late. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Spices

File:Fuente del Tritón, La Valeta, isla de Malta, Malta, 2021-08-25, DD 222-224 HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2021 at 13:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Fountains
Info View of Tritons' Fountain during the blue hour, Valletta, Malta Island, Malta. The fountain, located just outside the City Gate of Valletta, consists of three bronze Tritons holding up a large basin, balanced on a concentric base built out of concrete and clad in travertine slabs. The fountain is one of Malta's most important Modernist landmarks and was designed and constructed between 1952 and 1959 by eminent sculptor Chevalier Vincent Apap and his collaborator draughtsman Victor Anastasi. The sculptural group collapsed in 1978 and was repaired between 1986 and1987. In 2017 it underwent the last renovation works. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very strong image quality, sharp even at full size, and nice golden light. I wish the crops at the sides were a bit less abrupt but this is probably the best you can do in a single frame. Btw, the word is 'underwent', not 'undergoed'. Cmao20 (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, corrected, Poco a poco (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't compare well to our FP fountains, which have WOW! For a start, the water is barely visible, especially at the top. The triton figures in the middle are badly lit and small in the frame. Yes there is resolution from the camera, but the image as a whole isn't FP. The building on the right and the vendor stalls are distracting, and there are ghosts and on the right there are HDR artefacts. Let's compare some others... File:Triton Fountain Valletta Malta.jpg has the most amazing colours, subject isolation and the water is beautifully lit. File:Triton Fountain Modern Valletta.jpg makes me think the figures are having a splash in the sun, and water is excellently backlit and frozen with a fast shutter to sparkle like diamonds. File:The Fountain Club.jpg shows Pride colours and the whole fountain and reflections in the wet pavement. And File:Glorious Triton and LGBTQI rights.jpg shows it can be taken without people. Silhouette is popular: File:Tritons Fountain in Valletta.jpg, File:TRITON FOUNTAIN MALTA.jpg and File:Triton Fountain II.jpg. File:The Triton Fountain.jpg has simpler lighting and stars and captures the whole fountain without distractions. While all those have some technical issues, all of them have some spark of creative wow that is lacking here and which is needed for FP. -- Colin (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition problem. --Mile (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think 16mm might not have been the greatest idea here, as the ultra wide angle makes the statues appear much smaller than they really are. I'm normally fine with distorted proportions and the like if it feels like an artistic choice that serves a purpose, but I can't really see the point here. In general, I'll have to agree with Colin regarding lack of WOW. --El Grafo (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Ironically, it is in particular Poco’s own wonderful photographs of fountains that have set the bar so high that we now accord no ‘wow’ anymore to beautiful but not quite as dramatic shots of fountains (7 or so of our fountains FPs are by Poco). We now expect wonders of light and colours when somebody nominates a photo of an illuminated fountain. But wonders do not always mean good quality (which, besides the ‘wow’, should still be a criterion for FPs); for example, many of our other photos of this Tritons’ Fountain may have much effect, but also have serious shortcomings (more than one of the cited photos is tilted, some have halos, are obviously overprocessed, simply unsharp etc.). Therefore when I take a step back and look again at this photo it is IMHO still a very good photo of the Tritons’ Fountain and also really impresses me, just in another, more subtle way. What remains are the question whether another angle of view would have been even better (as explained very well by El Grafo) and the HDR problems at the right (black areas, should be fixable). --Aristeas (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, Aristeas, it was a good reminder. Indeed, I counted them, it's 7 FPs of fountains. Reading the feedback of some reviewers here I've something the impression that either I forgot all I learnt or all FPs so far were a kind of gift thank to a favorable star constellation... --Poco a poco (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Colin. I actually like the fact that the colors here are not quite so strong. But they would work better with a bluer sky. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-22 Air Power.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2021 at 12:43:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Military jet aircraft
Info created by USAF - uploaded & nominated by ToprakM --ToprakM ^✉ 12:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ToprakM ^✉ 12:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has only 0.9 megapixels - Ivar (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2021 (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:Bonfeld - Mühlberg - Eiche südlich vom Weg im November mit Gegenlicht.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2021 at 14:04:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Baden-Württemberg
Info Let's see if I remember what kind of photos do well here. For me the light is everything in this lovely contre-jour scene. created by Aristeas - uploaded by Aristeas - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aristeas: can you take the sharpening down a bit? --Ivar (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will look into it … --Aristeas (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iifar: Done. I have reset sharpening to the ACR default values (Sharpen 40, Radius 1.0, Detail 25, Mask increased from 0 to 10). --Aristeas (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Co mmon ists 19:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you very much, Cmao20, for the nomination! --Aristeas (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful lighting atmosphere -- Radomianin (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incandescent tree makes this one. Daniel Case (talk) 05:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#Baden-Württemberg

File:Bonsai Adam and Eve (PPL2-Enhanced) julesvernex2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2021 at 18:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Plants#Family_:_Moraceae
Info Last year, while looking around the kitchen for a cookie, I noticed that the potted bonsai sitting on the countertop looked like a sitting man from one side and a woman walking away from the other side, so decided to make a montage of 'Adam' looking at 'Eve' (now the bonsai has more leaves and just looks like Sideshow Bob from all angles). All by Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Technical tidbits: the vase was placed on a matte white surface, with a soft box behind and a couple of additional flashes to the sides (both bouncing light off the ceiling). I used a macro lens at f/5.6 (the sharpest aperture for this particular lens) and made a 9 image focus stack (using Helicon Focus) for 'Adam' and another one for 'Eve'. I then combined both images in Photoshop. Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good idea and well realized, in my humble opinion. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different. The focus stack is very sharp. Cmao20 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Siirski (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chicago September 2016-21.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2021 at 18:38:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United States
Info Reflextions on 111 W Upper Wacker Dr building (OneEleven), Chicago. This photo, taken five years ago, has been waiting patiently for the creator to make up his mind. It happened today. Long live minimalism! All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow --Co mmon ists 19:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive! – Gallery link refined by adding the section. --Aristeas (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination, really good thoughtful photo Cmao20 (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not 100% convinced about the top crop of the higher tower, but overall still very nice. --Poco a poco (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Siirski (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Geographic map of Somaliland.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2021 at 05:22:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Africa
Info created by Ikonact - uploaded by Ikonact - nominated by Siirski -- Siirski (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Geography map of Somaliland in English, easy to translate.
Support -- Siirski (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Additional names of wadis would be welcome, but it's a nice map and I give it my support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clean and clear map. – Gallery link refined. ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan and Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very professional-quality map. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lifeguard stand, Miami Beach.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2021 at 19:00:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#United_States
Info Art deco on the beach. The colorful Lifeguard stands of South Beach are created in the Art Deco style. An individually designed stand is located there every hundred meters. Created, uploaded and nominated by Radomianin -- Radomianin (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very attractive subject, nice colors and atmosphere. Just slightly oversharpened. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Nice shot but really much subsequent sharpening visible, please apply less of that, it doesn’t look natural. Colours in the lower parts looking a bit washed-out. --Kreuz schnabel 09:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New version uploaded Thank you for your review, Kreuzschnabel. I have applied a little less image sharpening. About the colors I can't say much, maybe I didn't have the hood on the lens at that time. Many greetings, -- Radomianin (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per King of Hearts. --Aristeas (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per KoH and Kreuzschnabel. Cmao20 (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Siirski (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oratunturi central summit from the west in midnight, Sodankylä, Lapland, Finland, 2019 June.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2021 at 14:03:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Finland
Info Striking composition and really nice light. created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good to have you back, Cmao. --Ivar (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric picture. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support even though quality is not the greatest. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish the background was sharper, but light, colours and atmosphere are great. --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aichi Message me 14:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Siirski (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is always something slightly otherworldly about the light of the midnight sun, especially on a landscape, that I just can't place but is evident in pictures such as this, and I think you can only really appreciate it when you've experienced it for enough time to regularize it. More than any other, this image has convinced me it's time for a "clouds with the midnight sun" subcategory for images that others might, without looking at the latitude and date if they're present in the metadata, mistake for sunrise or sunset. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ponte Vecchio from Ponte Santa Trinita Blue hour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2021 at 19:15:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Italy
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 19:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 19:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a perfectly good photo for a QI, but this is a very famous view, and I'm sorry to say that I don't see anything outstanding about this photo. It's not outstandingly sharp or free from noise, etc., nor is it a greatly memorable composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose partly per Ikan, however I would have opposed this on QI as well. The quality is rather on the poor side, you cannot compensate for that by oversharpening. --Kreuz schnabel 09:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Pairing what is arguably one of Sony's weakest full-frame lenses with a 60MP sensor is an uphill battle, it will be challenging to get tack sharp images. I would reach out to @Aristeas, who has an exquisite collection of FE mount lenses, for tips on new lenses :) Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, beautiful place but a tiny bit noisy and I don't find the light particularly thrilling, it may be blue hour but the very dull featureless sky does tend to detract. Cmao20 (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentA nice photo anyway, considering the difficulty of centering the Ponte Vecchio from that distance, because unless you were on a boat, I guess you shot from Ponte alle Grazie, which is not that close as the crow flies. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wiesmann Roadster MF3 Classic-Gala 2021 1X7A0177.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2021 at 17:57:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info created by Alexander-93 - uploaded by Alexander-93 - nominated by Alexander-93 -- Alexander-93 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexander-93 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A correct picture of a nice car, but not special enough for deserving the FP star. By the way, "let the poor thing breathe"! (too tight crop) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Some of the leather parts overexposed, but the tight crop makes the entire composition unbalanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreuzschnabel (talk • contribs)
- Comment Uploaded a new version with a darker rear of the car and a little bit more space. Nevertheless, the car is the main object, so IMO it should be the dominant thing in the image.--Alexander-93 (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the crop. And I remember to sign my !votes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 06:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would prefer still more space at left and right, but overall the image is balanced and done very well. --Aristeas (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 19:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good enough for me, pretty car and I like the contrast in the colours. I'm not sure it would be FP without the red flowers as a counterpoint. Cmao20 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kothapet Fruit Market.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2021 at 09:15:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info A worker takes a break in between work at the Kothapet fruit market in Hyderabad, India -- Dey.sandip (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be a bit sharper, but nice colours and good subject. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject, well executed --Kritzolina (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you should include a category for limes, which I believe these are. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Ikan Kekek yes these are sweet lemons locally called mosambi. I have updated description and added a category. --Dey.sandip (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dey.sandip, are you certain that that is the right category? According to en:Sweet lemon, there are many different things called "sweet lemon", and most of them are no lemons but other species (or cultivars thereof) from the Citrus genus. Might be better move it to Category:Citrus fruit instead … Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added the suggested category -- Dey.sandip (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Never seen such giant peas before :-) Striking compo -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support taxonomical details aside, that's a great picture! --El Grafo (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As we seen giant peas and produced many of bit.--Aichi Message me 06:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basile beat me to the obvious joke. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Celing of Wien Hauptbahnhof (Vienna Main Station), Austria 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2021 at 19:03:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Train_stations
Info all by Julesvernex2 (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Taken at Vienna's Main Station with a mobile phone, while rushing from one train to another. I've always liked the image's composition and lighting but, as a self-diagnosed camera nerd and pixel-peeper, didn't think much of its quality. That changed when I printed it and found out it looked great! Julesvernex2 (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely a bold subject with not that many pixels to peep, so the cell phone quality works here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Minimalist beauty. --Aristeas (talk) 08:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, composition isn't working for me. Amazing, but not outstanding enough for FP in my eyes. --Milseburg (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any particular reason for this orientation ? This might look different (and better) if you turn it +90 or -90 degrees. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point Dey.sandip, I too was on the fence about the image's orientation. These skylights are quite lanky, so I opted for this particular crop and the landscape orientation to make it look more boxy than it actually is. Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Support OK :) --Dey.sandip (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes! --El Grafo (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wonderful composition, but JPEG artifacts. --XRay 💬 13:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed XRay, and regrettably already present on the unedited JPEG. Since then I have wised up and started using a 3rd party app that provides access to the mobile camera's original raw file (or I use the HEIC format when I want to take advantage of the phone's computational photography abilities) Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yes nice abstract, a bit of a shame about the artefacts but I have seen much worse than this pass. Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like abstracted shapes. Support despite the mentioned technical shortcomings. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NaCl octahedra.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2021 at 17:31:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Science#Science
Info created by Goran_tek-en - uploaded by Goran_tek-en - nominated by Goran tek-en -- --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not visually amazing or beautiful, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Ikan. SHB2000 (talk) 07:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fine illustration but sadly nothing that really wows me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:14, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloemknop van een Clematis texensis ´Princess Diana´. 20-07-2021 (actm.).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2021 at 04:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info Flower bud of an Clematis texensis ´Princess Diana´. Focus stack of 32 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! -- Radomianin (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Siirski (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp focus stack. Cmao20 (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Long live minimalism! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit suprise to need 32 images to get this subject sharp, but anyhow FP Poco a poco (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good back, i would try to get rid of those "pink" dots above-right. You use manual focus or Canon M has auto ? --Mile (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Would you like to highlight the pink dots? I can't find them. With my stacked photos, I focus manually. That suits me well. Thank you for your comment.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DeepDream SchillerGym 20210821 Hof04021 RAW 202109251094CROP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2021 at 10:42:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated#Other
Info An example of a high-resolution DeepDream image created/uploaded/nominated by PantheraLeo1359531 -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something completely different, and I guess we will be completely divided about this one ;–). Well, the LSD freaks would have been happy about a computer program which visualizes parts of their visions, and the QAnon fans and other conspiration theorists will take this as an evidence that Bill Gates now totally manipulates reality ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. An abstract and fascinating work. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks rather strange at full-page size, but you need to pixel peep this for the full effect with all the animal heads, monsters, etc. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too strange for me, no enthusiasm, too artificial. The choice of motif appears arbitrary with this technique. I don't see any point in presenting this building like this. The technology itself does not make a FP for me. --Milseburg (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the contrast between the solid, conservative, maybe boring classic German school building and the psychedelic manipulation. That contrast makes the manipulation much more funny for me ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think this meets FP's requirement for non-notable works, that they are "wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art". Since it is possible to apply the algorithm to any image, and tweak the parameters to taste, we potentially have an infinite choice. The high-resolution of this one actually counts against it, as it can only really be "enjoyed" by pixel peeping. The source training data for this example seems to be quite limited (snakes, dogs?) leading to a lot of repetition which gets boring quickly. At a whole-image level, it just looks like someone overlaid an over saturated Paisley pattern. The choice of combining a building, with straight lines, and organic life dreams doesn't work imo. Similarly the combination of pastel coloured building/tree with unpleasantly lurid primary coloured dream spoils the point that one is supposed to get confused between fact and fiction, dream and reality. The best such dream images work at the whole-image level, and where an organic subject is played with by organic imaginary creatures, resulting in one really thinking for a moment that there's a dog here or a bird there. They really do make one think of a nightmare or hallucination. This doesn't do that imo. -- Colin (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. We sometimes need some out-of-the-box photos to shake the system. But this is indeed too much and not particularly aesthetically pleasant. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose very interesting, but I'll have to agree with Colin: It's not a very good example of the "genre" because it is so finely grained that I have to magnify it past a full-screen view in order to get the point. --El Grafo (talk) 08:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure whether I like it, but I think it is unusual and good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pe Colin. --Ivar (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pylon of Ada Bridge by night (Sava river, Belgrade, Serbia).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2021 at 08:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white#Places
Info Ada Bridge with pylon (Belgrade, Serbia). My shot. --Mile (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's handheld shot on wide-angle. I did some transforming but i intend to keep wires insetad of some "perpendicularity" - composition first.
Support -- Mile (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom right corner is distracting (not only blurry but also ugly in the composition). Street lamps and buildings are leaning in. Noisy -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking; black and white was the right choice here. Cmao20 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile --Ermell (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, definitely a QI but per Basile; the other one was better. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Poco a poco (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's deserving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested edit

Weak oppose While it’s certainly a nice idea and striking image, I have to agree with Basile’s criticism. The issues mentioned are easy to fix, apply a bit of perspective correction and a slight bottom crop to make the railing(?) less dominant. See suggested version to the right :) --Kreuz schnabel 20:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanx Kreuz for derivate. Well i think we still need that road, which is cropped now, and we lost some wires (which i would try to be on the spot). As you can see its made with 12mm. Only solution is to try with more wide-angle, 10-11 mm. Fisheye would be too much probably and would destroy ends (end of wires and top of pylon). So i plan is to make reshot.--Mile (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Link to the alternative fixed for the bot. See Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/File:Pylon of Ada Bridge by night (Sava river, Belgrade, Serbia).jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Reshot. --Mile (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quercus robur acorn - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2021 at 05:44:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Fagaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's just incredible at full size, especially on my 23.5-inch monitor! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 11:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing capture -- Radomianin (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Siirski (talk) 08:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 02:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support And one more. French description added.--Jebulon (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spielplatz Sägmüllermatte - Lichtental 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2021 at 11:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Toys
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- great lighting and colors. Seven Pandas (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Co mmon ists 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Alexander-93 (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose Cute but ... I find that bench at upper right distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically well done and I think most children (and some adults!) would love to play on it but regretfully weak oppose per Danniel Case. IMHO image does not have enough wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the midday light aesthetically unpleasant. It makes the picture very ordinary. Also per Daniel and GRDN711 -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically excellent (sharpness, light, exposure), but per other opposers.--Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tari Topeng Malangan 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2021 at 10:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Events
Info created by Ivuvisual - uploaded by Ivuvisual - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 10:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the streaks of light in the background? What is causing them? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikan Kekek: I'd say that's small streams of side-lit water. --El Grafo (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Background unsharpness I can understand. But too much of the subject isn't sharp, either. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A very impressive photo! I wish that the person was sharper, too; but it’s also not really unsharp, therefore my conclusion is the weak support. --Aristeas (talk) 10:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The criticisms are valid, but I agree with Aristeas, and I find the composition with all the masks right and left special and unusually good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I want to agree with Aristeas' and Ikan's point of view. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose due to unsharpness, too centered composition and noise.--Jebulon (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Colors are nice, but the composition is lacking. Lights are a bit uneven, not sure whether the angle or moment of capture was correct -- Dey.sandip (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:(Orgueil) - L'Église Saint-Ferréol - Voute du choeur.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2021 at 13:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#France
Info created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Support A fascinating church vault and a very good photo, especially for ISO 2000 (!); a bit grainy mostly at the top, but overall surprisingly clean. The only real problem are the overexposed windows. Of course this is a photo of the painted ceiling, therefore IMHO it is OK that the windows are not perfect; but especially the one at the right is significantly overexposed. --Aristeas (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC) – Looking again at it I agree that the windows are of minor importance here, so changed my vote to full support. --Aristeas (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly I think it's great, yes there's a bit of noise in some places but it's really striking and very high resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have walked through this small village very often, there is nothing remarkable about it. I stopped, on a systematic basis, and I was very strongly impressed by this trompe l'oeil work of the church choir. The work must have been very complex due to the depth of the support. Thank you to IamMM for this very pleasant appointment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support sans problème !--Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shame it isn't HDR, to rescue the windows, but per others. -- Colin (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Colin.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Salt workers of Marakkanam.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2021 at 14:50:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info Women work at salt pans in Marakkanam, Tamil Nadu, India. All by me -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The left crop cuts off the large salt dome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking into it. In reality, the salt mound was fairly large and spread, so didn't have much of an option there other than to cut it off at some point. Trying to include all of it wouldn't let focus on anything else, hence this -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was planning to support your candidate. I find the photo very interesting from the photographic and social point of view. I find the composition very good and focusing on the labouring women. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wolfgang Moroder, I have reinstated the nomination after your interest. Thank you for reviewing --Dey.sandip (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, nice unusual photo of people at work; is it a bit tilted, though? Cmao20 (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taken at the right moment, and the background with the women coming is successful in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another National Geographic-quality shot. Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile -- Radomianin (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile, yes. – But isn’t it tilted (see the background)? Rotating it a bit CCW could improve it further. --Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely FP potential but sorry, I've to agree with KoH, the image is not balanced and that crop is disturbing to me, --Poco a poco (talk) 20:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the criticisms but think the composition is pretty good, anyway, and I like the documentary quality. I think anyone doing a report about the salt workers of Marakkanam would be happy to use this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. SHB2000 (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as already said.--Jebulon (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Birth of Venus (Botticelli) 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2021 at 19:33:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 19:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 19:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google Art Project version was already promoted here. MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ten years ago,besides they restored it in 2019, the quality is lower in my opinion. Thank you.--Co mmon ists 19:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It looks to me like the "restoration" damaged the painting, which is common - well-meaning people remove too much from paintings, flattening works that are not supposed to look flat. And the older photo is sharper at the same resolution but is higher-resolution. You can make an argument for best in scope for after the latest restoration at VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Lovely painting but the Google version is more how this iconic painting is usually imagined to be, and it is sharper and better resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know what's gone wrong with this photo. It looks like you photographed a cheap reproduction in IKEA. Far from seeing brush strokes and cracks when I pixel peep, I see a pattern that looks too much like some printing artefact or camera noise. It is also quite considerably cropped. -- Colin (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sponge fishing LCCN2003666909.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2021 at 23:13:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Marine
Info created by Popular Graphic Arts-Library of Congress - uploaded by User:Fæ - nominated by User:Downtowngal -- Downtowngal (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Downtowngal (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to see a digitally restored version of this print, with the library codes, rips and other damage such as the black marks in the middle of the left side removed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have digitally cleaned this image and uploaded it to the gallery of the submitted file, as File:Sponge fishing LCCN2003666909 restored.jpg. There is a lot of grime on it and the edges are damaged, but the rips, folds, and spots are gone.Downtowngal (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would you like to offer that as an alt? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I will nominate it separately. Downtowngal (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Ikan's suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 05:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basílica de San Ulrico y Santa Afra, Augsburgo, Alemania, 2021-06-04, DD 26-28 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2021 at 12:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info Basilica of SS. Ulrich and Afra, Augsburg, Bavaria, Germany. The catholic parish, one of the best examples of Gothic architecture in Germany, originated from the Roman tomb of St. Afra, which was martyred in 304. Its high bell tower with an "onion" dome, which dominates the city to the south, served as a prototype for the construction of numerous baroque towers of Bavaria. The church was officially elevated to the rank of imperial abbey in 1577 and in the anniversary 200 years later, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart held and organ concert. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong candidate with excellent composition, light and image quality. Cmao20 (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20; absolutely impressive! – There are some hard to spot dust spots in the sky (see notes); they are not important, I just wanted to mention them before anybody makes a drama out of them ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The spots are gone, I believe, Aristeas. Thank you for your review and notes. Poco a poco (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! I have removed the image note again. --Aristeas (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Aristeas -- Radomianin (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. (Parenthetically, it's interesting to see how much ghosting happens in 0.8 seconds.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek: that's not quite right, the information in the EXIF file is misleading. This image is the result of 3 frames with different shutter speeds: 4, 0,8 and 20 seconds. For some reason I cannot help when creating a merged file from all 3 Lightroom picks up the fastest shutter speed for the EXIF data and ignores the other ones. IMHO the slowest shutter speed would be more accurate, but I don't know how to adjust it, if possible at all. I'm happy if somebody can give me a hint to fix this issue. Poco a poco (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blue hour -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Corrections needed, anoted. --Mile (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You two always oppose each other's nominations, or at least as long as I can remember. I think both of you are just feuding and should stop voting on each other's nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: you are probably right, but the pattern is different. After he opposes my pictures a bunch of supports usually follow and even if I address the issues he mentions, there is never a rectification of the vote. So, he just looks for a minor issue to oppose and he nevers come back, that's all but constructive feeedback. Looking back to my opposes in his nominations I'd say that they are more grounded and following votes (at least part of them) consider it as valid. Poco a poco (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To pour oil on troubled waters ;–) I have taken a look at the three annotations.
1. Dialing down the highlights on the bright part of the roof is a good idea; I would just try that.
2. The twisted tower-like building at the left looks strange, yes, but it seems to be twisted in reality, as other photographs and aerial imagery shows; so no change is necessary.
3. The roof going uphill belongs to a very new building, I have found no image for comparison, but the most probable explanation is that the roof is really slanted (there are such roofs); so no change.

Hope it helps, --Aristeas (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the highlights on the roof. I agree with Aristeas the other "issues" are not. I haven't done any edit anywhere here. The building on the left is straight, the roof looks strange but it's as shown here. --Poco a poco (talk) 10:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Aristeas' review here - the first criticism is fair, the others seem to be genuine features of the scene. Cmao20 (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think oppose was with some reasons, as mentioned. Especially leveled roof seemed strange. Aristeas saw aerial shots and said it is OK. So i remove oppose (i was checking before too). Still think left side could be done better. Aren't we here to judge the photo ? All mentioned is/can be corrected. --Mile (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The highlight reduction looks silly. The usual Lightroom effect of making it go a bit grey. Compare the image before,and we had what was clearly a very bright incandescent light shining on the roof. Now it looks like there is a grey light shining on the roof, which somehow defeats the laws of physics, by being able to remove colours from what it shines upon. Please, for goodness sake, revert. Sometimes really bright lights are really bright and the only way to fix that, if you think it is a problem, is to ask the council to turn the light down a bit! -- Colin (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I can find a kind of middle way here reducing the correction, do you believe, Colin, that I should do it after the nom is closed? I think so, but rather double check. Poco a poco (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why you would wait. You didn't wait or ping the existing voters that you'd reduced the highlights. Why do you think it needs reduced at all? There's clearly a very bright light up there and we are documenting the scene. It is a little bit distracting but it is what it is. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, done, and pinging nobody... Poco a poco (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FCAB GT22CU 2405, 2401 and GL26C 2005 Cumbre - Pampa.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2021 at 05:09:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious FP Cmao20 (talk) 07:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture -- Dey.sandip (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous! -- Radomianin (talk) 09:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Light, subject, composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support marvellous composition and shadows - Benh (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good composition; right moment - --GRDN711 (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I Like the way the train looks like a snake here ... Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very similar to File:FCAB EMD GT22CU-3 San Pedro - Ascotan.jpg, but with a even more interesting train shape. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 33 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gimbap (pixabay).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2021 at 09:28:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Food
Info created by changupn at pixabay - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 09:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 09:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A really nice composition, but DoF should be better. I recommend focus stacking. The resolution is very small too. --XRay 💬 13:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support I don't really care about the depth of field being quite shallow, I don't think we should insist that all images of this kind are focus stacked, and the focus is sharp in enough of the picture. I like the composition too, it's a very thoughtful arrangement. But I do care about the low resolution. Cmao20 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather right-heavy, I would crop a bit on the left. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Main dish in focus. Appetizing to me. ~~Slightly unbalanced margins left-right, otherwise~~ well presented -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Basile; really appetizing. The selective DoF is appealing. I just wish that the resolution was higher. --Aristeas (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Positioning is not so nice, subjects to close. Left side could be croped. Highlighted corner disturb a bit. Photographer did want "focus stack" - f/16, result is low IQ. Could be done beter and bellow 6 MPx out of 22 MPx. I would change light position. Food can be done without focus stack too, isnt so necessary. --Mile (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@XRay, Cmao20, King of Hearts, Basile Morin, Aristeas, and PetarM: Cropped and overwritten. It seems obviously better than before. Would you check the change? Thanks.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 15:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, IMO not better. --XRay 💬 16:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. Thank you for replying.— Sadopaul 💬 📁 16:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is better, but other objections cant be fixed. This shot could be done much beter. --Mile (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, but the low-ish resolution - this being the reason why my support is weak - is not really something that can be fixed. I still do like your photo though. Cmao20 (talk) 21:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improved, yes -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Agree totally with XRay, furthermore I've concerns about the license, which was not yet reviewed. I looked into the Simplified Pixabay license terms and if I were the one who has to review it on Commons, I'd say the file has to be deleted as the license is not compatible with the minimum requirements on Commons (e.g. it cannot be reused as it is or reused for certain purposes). Poco a poco (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Poco a poco: Take a look at the template, pre-2019 Pixabay images are acceptable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, sorry, thanks for your message. I stroke through the second part of the comment above --Poco a poco (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version is better to me. I support, but if Poco is right, it will be for naught. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but small.--Jebulon (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Colin (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Food

File:서울 선릉과 정릉 선릉(성종대왕릉) 동측무석인 측면 미술 2005년(출처 국립문화재연구소).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2021 at 09:25:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
Info created by w:National Research Institute of Cultural Heritage - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 09:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 09:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am usually not much of a fan of military monuments, but this is definitely a WOW --Kritzolina (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danu Widjajanto (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done; the black-and-white of the statues stands out nicely from the autumn colours of the background. --Aristeas (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 21:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Alexander-93 (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and original subject Poco a poco (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors

File:Abū l-Hasan Banīsadr IMG 2044 edit (cropped-01).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2021 at 17:28:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait
Info Abolhassan Banisadr, first president of Iran, died today. Created and uploaded by Christoph Braun - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 17:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don’t see an outstanding photographic work here. This is a nice portrait but of mediocre quality, and not even quite sharp at less than 5 megapixels. --Kreuz schnabel 20:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz. Maybe nominate at COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz.--Alexander-93 (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry, low DoF -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting document, godd timing for publication, but insufficient quality.--Jebulon (talk) 21:56, 11 October 2021 (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: with five opposes in two days since its original support ... this is not going to be promoted. Daniel Case (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2021 (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:Arcadengang-Heilandskirche am Port von Sacrow-msu-2021-1705-.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2021 at 14:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info I find the form and composition of this photo really pleasing. created by Matthias Süßen - uploaded by Matthias Süßen - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A classic demonstration of perspective with a nice contrast between the repetitive artistic forms of the building and the free natural forms of the landscape at the end. --Aristeas (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dispensable digression

@Cmao20: I hate to say it, but we still have the rule “Only two active nominations by the same user”, and your two previous nominations are not yet (officially) closed ;–). Should I take over this and your other new nomination to avoid that they are closed? Just wanting to help, --Aristeas (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aristeas, both my existing nominations are technically closed by the five-day rule as of about an hour ago. Ever since I joined FPC I have customarily started my new nominations after the previous ones are finished but before the bot has officially closed them, and I have not yet had any complaints about it. But if that's not the done thing anymore, happy to wait for the bot in future. Cmao20 (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cmao20, I am happy to hear that. So let’s keep things as they are. Just wanted to help, --Aristeas (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Definately a good find. Crop could be much better (bottom or above). Top is not so attractive. --Mile (talk) 08:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd have probably moved a bit to the right or crop that portion of sky between the columns, but still, very nice Poco a poco (talk) 11:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support With Aristeas’ arguments.--Jebulon (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The final door of the background is particularly pleasant -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Basílica de San Jorge, Victoria, isla de Gozo, Malta, 2021-08-22, DD 05-07 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2021 at 15:02:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
Info Saint George Basilica, Victoria, Gozo Island, Malta. The St. George's Basilica or San Ġorġ in Maltese is a historic Baroque church situated in the Cittadella of Victoria, the fortified old town in the middle of Gozo, the second largest island in the Maltese archipelago, and is surrounded by a maze of old narrow streets and alleys. Today's basilica was built between 1672 and 1678. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely lovely. Cmao20 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Siirski (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super wowy: The starburst effects are the icing on the cake! -- Radomianin (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support👌--Co mmon ists 19:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tiny crop from right would improve the symmetry further. Dey.sandip (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Poco a poco (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Borders are fuzzy. --Mile (talk) 06:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, will raise my bar for your noms accordingly, ridiculous --Poco a poco (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest a correction of the proportions: the circles and arches appear flat--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfgang Moroder: Done Poco a poco (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. --Aristeas (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deserves FP status, no doubt for me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parroquia de Santa Clara de Asís, Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 03.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2021 at 14:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Mexico
Info I thought this deserved the star because it is a very beautiful church with lots of intricate detailing and because, as a church in Mexico, it is a bit of a change from the usual Western European focus. The resolution is not as high as some of Poco's recent churches but it is still very high and the sharpness at full size is really good. No other FPs of the motif - indeed, only one other church interior from all of Mexico. created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, Cmao20! Poco a poco (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support For the window with the overexposed light, however the photo deserves to be seen.--Co mmon ists 21:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Alexander-93 (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support per Commonists. Daniel Case (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The left side is leaning in a bit, correctable --Llez (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was indeed a slight tilt, I corrected it along with a small perspective correction Poco a poco (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bloemen van een Solidago rugosa. 07-10-2021. (d.j.b).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2021 at 04:51:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
InfoFlowers of an Solidago rugosa. Focus stack of 37 photos. This species does not proliferate and blooms from late summer into autumn with warm yellow small flowers.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment petals have lost some details. Imo colour temperature 6100 is too high. --Ivar (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The white balance has been adjusted. (5500) The flowers have been given more detail. Note: The diameter of the flower spikes is ~14mm. The flowers are so tiny! I don't think it can get much sharper. Thank you for your recommendations.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Better, but not quite there yet. I suggest to take WB more down and/or decrease the exposure. --Ivar (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Small correctionaccording to your advice.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice picture, but agree with Ivar. Also, one would expect a much sharper image. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 02:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo with a nice background, could be a little sharper in places. Cmao20 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 16:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ceiling of Ljubljana Cathedral (strop Cerkev sv. Nikolaja, Ljubljana).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2021 at 07:06:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings/Ceilings#Slovenia
Info Baroque ceiling frescoes of Cathedral in Ljubljana, Slovenia. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first I wasn't sure about the sharpness at full size but then I saw you had provided a 74mpx file - not really fair to complain, in that case. Great motif of course. Cmao20 (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info @ Cmao20 It is Hi-Resolution file made of 20 Mpx sensor. Quality is not as merged from more shots but i dont see what i would get to make it back to 20 Mpx. I would get "True colors" out, but its same if you downsize to 50%. --Mile (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't want you to downsize; more detail is better, really. Cmao20 (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly spoken the high resolution mode of the camera is the result of 8 images combined to one 80 MPx RAW file in the camera without the need to process it later on. Poco a poco (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ --A.Savin 11:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco and Ikan. --A.Savin 23:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sublime and impressive! -- Radomianin (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It makes no sense for me to have another FP of the same angle, some subject and same author, please, ask for a delist and replace of the current FP with much lower resolution, File:Baroque ceiling frescoes (Ljubljana Cathedral).jpg. Otherwise a nice shot but fuzzy borders. Poco a poco (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree on delist and replace. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Other photo is croped and without windows. Is this a rule: you can not have 2 similar as FP (some put similar shots into Set nominee), but there can be similar FP if other is by other photographer ? Does Commons care who is author ?--Mile (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC) @A.Savin you were admin, explanation ?[reply]

Comment I certainly don't care who the author is. I take your point and Support this photo, without prejudice to this question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The existing FP is redundant, as the nominated picture shows exactly the same (+ more), and has more resolution/detail. That said, I would support a D&R. Regards --A.Savin 12:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "shows exactly the same (+ more)" - this means it is actually a different crop. Delist and replace could be done just if I crop this same to that one. I believe both can be FP, in any case everyone can nominate Delist. This picture can't be a "prisoner" of other photos. --Mile (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't interprete the rules or make up new rules, in terms of delist and replace this is all we have as a guide:

This can also be used for cases in which a previous version of an image was promoted to FP, but a newer version of the image has been made and is believed to be superior to the old version, e.g. a newly edited version of a photo or a new scan of a historical image. In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images.
— in: Commons:Featured picture candidates (section Featured picture delisting candidates)

This candidate fully meets those criteria. If the angle would be different or we had more elements detail in the original one I could understand this discussion, but it isn't the case.

When I pointed out that the author is the same I didn't mean with that, that this is a relevant criteria for the process, but rather that you know that you have an FP of the same subject from the same POV with much lower resolution. Poco a poco (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text quoted by Poco actually clearly explains that Delist and Replace is not relevant to this image: "In particular, it is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject". This is a completely new photo, not an edit of an existing or Google Art Project rescan of an identical painting. It doesn't matter that Mile is the photographer of both. @A.Savin, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, and Poco a poco: let's not confuse this with English Wikipedia FP, where there can only be one image at FP, or where a better image routinely substitutes for a weaker one and is replaced in the article. If we habitually D&R'd images of the same subject, leaving only one, we'd have to delist several images of the moon, and Poco's Basílica de Notre-Dame would have pushed out Diliff's version, to name just two examples. By all means nominate the old photo for delist if you think it "no longer deserves to be a featured picture" but there's no reason to link it with this nomination. An old featured picture doesn't become crap because get a better one. It makes no sense to oppose this nomination just because there's a weaker one already in the collection. Guys, we are supposed to oppose a nomination if there is already better one in the collection! -- Colin (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's purely a procedural oppose, which doesn't affect the result. If Mile wanted to behave more respectfully, he should have changed this nom to a D+R. "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured...", but de facto these *are* two different versions, even though not the same picture. Regards --A.Savin 17:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A.Savin, with respect, you are wrong. Mile doesn't need to do a D&R out of "respect" this is not what a D&R is for. They are not the same picture, which refers to what comes out your camera. You and I could take photos of the Ceiling of Ljubljana Cathedral at the same time, and they would be two different pictures, even if very similar. These two images are of the same subject, that's all, and one captures a significantly larger portion of the walls and ceiling. Nobody insisted that Poco D&R Diliff's cathedral. -- Colin (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can give as many considerations as you want about the process and the intention of D&R. If that rule does not apply here where an old image with less detail and crop is replaced by another one of higher resolution with a bigger crop, then that rule is useless and we need either to change it or introduce a new one. If I look for the finest of Commons and get 10 similar pictures of the same subject and this rules doesn't help for such a case to sort things out, then that rule is useless. That's what I think. Still I will not go back to all those places which have already a FP of mine or of somebody else with a better equipment because that hardly helps the project. Instead we should encourage the photographers to provide new material. --Poco a poco (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poco a poco and A.Savin, the current D&R rules were proposed here by King of Hearts. It was then added by KoH. The intention was very clearly for "re-edited versions of the same image" or where someone had got hold of a better (higher resolution, better colour/condition) scan of an artwork. The point is to prevent two FPs of an identical source image, only with different processing or resolution. The previous FP here, from six years ago, was 11MP and the single-frame image didn't capture all of the ceiling. The new stitched FPC is 71MP and has no significant crop. You might not feel motivated to take better versions of your own FPs but there are plenty subjects that could do with higher-quality featured pictures, and this one is a huge plus for the project. You weren't required to D&R Diliff's cathedral interior when you nominated yours. BTW, if a photographer wants to D&R their old FP because they feel the old one clearly doesn't meet FP standards, I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with folk opposing a new photograph, hugely superior and FP quality, taken six years later, on some misreading of the rules. -- Colin (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral pending decision on delist and replace. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressively detailed. -- Colin (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portrait of Mary Pickford, signed (CHS-2292) digital restoration.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2021 at 09:19:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by unknown photographer, restored and uploaded by Fæ, nominated by Yann
Support Restored high resolution image of a famous artist, around 1915, signed. -- Yann (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Seven Pandas (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is her signature cut off? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: The original is like this. I corrected the source. Yann (talk) 10:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support That's a real shame, but this is certainly a deserving photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan -- Radomianin (talk) 06:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historically interesting in that, despite being taken at the height of her fame, it does not show her signature hairstyle. Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 16:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nava Kailash Temple-Kalna-West Bengal-DSC0402.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2021 at 14:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#India
Info All by me -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can’t make head or tail of this one. Entire image is strongly leaning to the right. Composition is poor – spires cut off while the bottom 40 percent are nothing but dark, featureless foreground and entirely uninteresting. The light painting is somewhat pointless and not too skilfully performed IMHO, but maybe it’s a wisdom quote in a writing I just cannot read. May I ask what makes you think this is one of the very very best images we’ve got on Commons? --Kreuzschnabel 14:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Light painting is not "performed", the description in the image page clearly states how the light trail came into the frame. There is no wisdom quote that one needs to worry about either. There are some perceived shortcomings as mentioned above, though much of that results from not having the choice or option to place the camera other than where it was placed. My reasoning for thinking it was a good image is because of the light which accurately captured the blue and dark prevalent at that time, also the complimentary effect the orange streak creates against the blue backdrop. + This is an image of a place that has not been well documented. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Leaning building. The perspective is distracting. Also unbalanced composition with too much space ate the bottom and not enough at the top -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Peulle (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting photo but poor composition - far too much uninteresting foreground. Cmao20 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it hasn't picked up any supports in two days, and it doesn't seem likely to

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dokkum, molen Zeldenrust. 20-09-2021. (d.j.b) 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2021 at 04:43:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
Info Rye stone from the mill “De Jonge Sytske”. Demolished in 1937.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Image with good educational content and perhaps a VI. Composition (and wow factor) is however a little unimpressive for FP -- Dey.sandip (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. I also have my doubts, but I myself like the photo in the focus. The photo shows well what the people were able to make in the past. Thank you for your comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support As you say it is impressive the kind of things people in the past were able to create and relied upon to use. Good quality, nice light and colours. Cmao20 (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the twisting motion of the millstone and find this a good composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Dey. If it had a uniform brick background, it might have a chance. Daniel Case (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Aristeas (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perhaps a curious object when you stand in front, but the picture is not impressive at all. Boring pattern and composition. Ugly background. No wow for me. Just a QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dey. Wow is needed at FP and we need to be wowed by the image, not by the cleverness of our ancestors. -- Colin (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see anything more than a QI here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the reason stated above, sorry -- Dey.sandip (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and also the background --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Odorrana chloronota, Green odorous frog - Doi Phu Kha National Park (48563173517).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2021 at 18:49:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family_:_Ranidae_(True_Frogs)
Info created by Rushen - uploaded - nominated by me. -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 16:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support You got it ! --Jebulon (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressively detailed: 43 MP. I know not everyone owns a 45MP camera, but we get a lot of such images < 10MP and this makes a pleasant change. -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Siirski (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians#Family_:_Ranidae_(True_Frogs)

File:Herbstlicher Ausblick vom Pferdskopf.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2021 at 10:10:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Hesse
Info Autumn view from the Pferdskopf in the Rhön Mountains to the north
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice at full size. Cmao20 (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clouds a bit noisy ? --Jebulon (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Splendid view, the Wolkenmeer is very impressive. --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 13:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not the sharpest, but beautiful. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per King. Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per KoH Poco a poco (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sponge fishing LCCN2003666909 restored.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2021 at 12:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Marine
Info Digital restoration: removed rips, folds, spots, and printing artifacts. Author unknown, source is Popular Graphic Arts-Library of Congress - uploaded by User:Fæ - nominated by Downtowngal -- Downtowngal (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Downtowngal (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could probably be sharper, but high-resolution and interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support often with nominations of art, it's unclear to me whether are people are voting on the original work itself or the quality of the digitization. There are so many works of art that we promote which are not (to me) particularly interesting either in subject or as part of art history. Here is one that I know why I am supporting: because the subject is fascinating, and the digitization is good enough. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites. --Aristeas (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Siirski (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it appropriate for me to upload a sharpened version now, during the voting, or wait until afterwards? Downtowngal (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you've done nothing other than sharpen, it would be fine to upload that now, but if you're unsure we might not think you oversharpened it, you could upload it, then revert to the current version but post a link to the sharpened version for us to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Michelangelo's David 2021 - 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 09:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
I withdraw my nomination created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 09:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 09:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before voting, given the high number of images of this statue on Commons, I would need some justification for why this image in particular is the best.--Peulle (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)–[reply]

I think the colour and details are better, then you can compare with the others to check. Thank you.--Co mmon ists 12:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bit oversharpened, to me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this photo only 13.8 MP, when the A7R IV is capable of far more? I'm not usually one to complain too loudly about downsampling (when the image is over 10 MP), but for such a famous subject every little bit counts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To get this perspective you have to be very far away, I used the 50mm, otherwise I would have had a perspective from below, as in this other photo of mine [1], thank you. --Co mmon ists 15:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other one feels more impressive to me, and I think that angle is legitimate though I know some regulars here don't like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can close this one and propose the other one if you think it is better. Thank you. --Co mmon ists 18:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd suggest waiting for more comments. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur, the version with higher resolution is better. --Ivar (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Having both seen this in person, and many times in many photos, this image does nothing to make me feel like I've never seen it. Plus the high sharpening halo. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Co mmon ists 15:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aurige. Musée Delphes. Grèce.png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2021 at 16:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_indoors
Info All, except the sculpture itself (!) by me (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC) -- Jebulon (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The very famous bronze sculpture of the Charioteer of Delphi. ca.780 bc. The athlete is possibly Polyzalos the Deinomide. Sculpture ("severe style") could be by Pythagoras of Syracuse. Height: 1,82m. We don't have so many works of art as FP. Black background here, but a transparent version is available in the file page for your creations. Picture taken in the Archaeological Museum of Delphi, Greece, no flash, no tri/monopod. -- Jebulon (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you spent so much time with background and clearing edges you push a bit more for new one, but i would increase format, seems very tight, black doesnt combine so nice. Somethinhg like this or this. --Mile (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for comment. Are you kidding ? Oh my gosh no, never ! My goal is to submit something real and perhaps useful, not such the cheats you suggest ! I can manage such a work easily (maybe you will find some in my old galleries), but if you have a look in the category, you will see many versions with the natural background, which is so horrible than you cannot deal with. If you prefer, I can nominate the transparent version. The subject is the statue itself, no need (as for me) of so many chantilly on the cake. Thats why the size is not important, but I will increase it for your comfort. Anyway, you just demonstrate that I am right: With my basic material, you can by yourself create all psychedelic background you want ! Be creative ! Thanks again.--Jebulon (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Bigger.--Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the isolated subject is useful and there's good amount of detail/resolution here. I'm not particularly keen on cutting out subjects, though accept that one can't turn up at the museum with some black cloth and ask the guards to hold it for you. File:Delfos, museo 13.jpg shows that from a certain angle with a certain lens you can achieve a plain background, though the chosen colour isn't pleasing (other photos suggest this one is paricularly saturated). -- Colin (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the cut-out job has been done very well and the results are FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special Poco a poco (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oops, thought I had already voted for this one ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Statues_indoors

File:Catbird in Central Park (14585).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2021 at 16:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Mimidae_(Mockingbirds_and_Thrashers)
Info A gray catbird (so named for their cat-like call) in a crab apple tree. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking and lovely capture, in my humble opinion. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding sharpness ! --Jebulon (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful with the red fruits and the soft background bokeh. --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You could remove Green CA bellow the tail. Nice shot anyway. --Mile (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support- --GRDN711 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scarlet tanager in GWC (25318).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2021 at 16:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Cardinalidae_(Cardinals,_Grosbeaks,_Saltators_and_Allies)
Info A female scarlet tanager eating a berry in a flowering dogwood tree. Scarlet tanagers are often high up in the trees, and seem wary of humans. I felt very lucky that this one got close enough to get a sharp shot (in a beautifully colorful tree, even). Took a few shots, but decided to nominate this one of it taking a bite as it's a bit different. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. The best among your other nominations in QIC IMO. You are right in your explanation.--Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and well done, imho -- Radomianin (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 13:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ivar (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Siirski (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Action, nice angle, and the yellow + red are appealing -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile Morin --IamMM (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very busy composition, but the action and the autumn feel (even if the leaves around really haven't been turning much yet) make up for it. Daniel Case (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A Japan Air Self-Defense Force F-2 aircraft flies in formation with a U.S. Air Force B-52H Stratofortress.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2021 at 12:49:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport#Military jet aircraft
Info created by Staff Sgt. Devin Rumbaugh - uploaded & nominated by ToprakM --ToprakM ^✉ 12:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ToprakM ^✉ 12:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking image, IMHO -- Radomianin (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Weapons of war are only useful if they help maintain peace and are never used.. Still, this is an excellent image. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Crop could be wider, left. --Mile (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral party per Mile, I feel like it is certainly striking but I am not sure whether it is outstanding in the genre of aerial photography, and the crop is certainly a bit tight on the left. Cmao20 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 21:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Cmao20 + a bit soft Poco a poco (talk) 12:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wet-blanket oppose Well done, and certainly topical due to the increased PRC aerial presence over the China Sea. But, at the end of the day it's just another photo of a jet fighter in flight taken from a nearby aircraft. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. A solid, well-lit shot but limited wow and, to be honest, it’s grainy and not even quite sharp at 6 megapixels. --Kreuz schnabel 20:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz. ToprakM's nominations have set the bar for photos of fighter jets in flight, and I think they've set it higher than this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice clean side view that should be very useful for Wikipedia. But the WOW is quite limited compared to other air-to-air shots we've seen here in the past. Quality is also underwhelming. That's 6.5MPx from a Z6, and still noticeably soft at full screen view. f/22 at ISO800 & 1/320 s feels strange to me, or do you need to stop down that much for DOF there? --El Grafo (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Others -- Dey.sandip (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 6 MP image should be sharper. This would be pretty impressive if created by a civilian, but the military has lots of opportunities to make similar and better photos. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, there are technical flaws such as tight left crop and poor sharpness, but I dont think this is an ordinary air-to-air photo. Military photography is usually done for documentation, not to record the best possible technical work and like underwater photography, it has its own limitations. This F-2 fighter is only flown by one country, Japan, and its not easy to find and photograph a flying F-2 with a missile loaded under its wings. --IamMM (talk) 04:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 14:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family : Caviidae (Cavies)
Info A high resolution and excellent quality photo of the capybara, the world's largest rodent species. There are three other FPs which all have their merits but I think you'll agree this one is very different and probably works better as a clear illustration of the species (it is the infobox pic on ENwiki, surely for that reason) created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 16MP isn't "High resolution" in 2021. This is half a metre of rodent, not some wee insect. The image is a rather ordinary QI scene and the animal has its back to us, which isn't ideal. The grass surround makes it hard to tell how tall it is. This is a semi-aquatic animal that lives in groups of 10-20, so perhaps we should reward capturing those aspects now. For example File:Banho matinal.JPG shows a family entering the water. Btw, it is lead picture on WP because Charles put it there ;-). -- Colin (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that Charles put it there, but I do wonder whether that really matters; the fact that it has been the stable lead image in the article for several years is a testament to its quality, I feel. Otherwise I accept your arguments though I still feel this is FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You must have a different experience to me on Wikipedia. e.g Rat with File:Rattus norvegicus 1.jpg (0.09 Megapixel) for 13 years. Generally, if it looks ok in thumbnail, nobody on Wikipedia will care, and only us FP photographers tend to care that the linked image looks good full screen or full size. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that obviously it doesn't indicate by itself that a photo is of FP quality. Cmao20 (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I appreciate ~~Charles's~~ the nomination, and I acknowledge ~~his~~ Charles's work on this, but ... ~~his~~ Cmao's argument makes a better case for VI than FP. It's an excellent "this is what one looks like" image for me, even taking Colin's point about the background into account. It is so successful at that, however, that it normalizes the creature's appearance to the point of depriving the image of any wow ... it looks here like something I'd expect to see hanging out in my yard. (and yes, of course, I realize that statement reflects a particular geographic perspective, and that some of the fauna that visit my yard during the average 24-hour period would indeed seem exotic and strange to people from elsewhere in the world, excluding perhaps the four birds in and around cages near me that are native in the wild to either Australia or Indonesia (and a fifth indigenous to North America)). Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case, note that this is Cmao20's nomination, not Charles's. -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Thanks ... appropriately amended. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Fair enough, thanks for all reviews. Cmao20 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papilio machaon caterpillar, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2021 at 16:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Top view
Side view
Bottom view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Papilionidae_(Swallowtails)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the set. Impressive images, good work. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alex Florstein (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Siirski (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light, smooth background, and impressive quality at full resolution 🐛 -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely --IamMM (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 04:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excelent set. Cmao20 (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parco fluviale alta Val d'Elsa 10.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2021 at 02:47:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy
Info The deep blue water is caused by the travertine limestone. All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I fall for the falling water and the colors --Kritzolina (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very calming and close to what Greek and Roman literatur has praised as a locus amoenus. --Aristeas (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 21:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 10:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if the upper part could be cropped out.--Jebulon (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support on fixing that stitching error or whatever along the bottom (it could probably be cropped out). Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks for the hint and support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the composition and light aren't wowing me. -- Colin (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Putting the tree at the 2/3 mark is not a great idea IMO, as it splits the image (and the waterfall) apart. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special for FP nomination, common good image. -- Karelj (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj and Colin. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Ivar (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File: Pesona Burung Merak Hijau.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2021 at 12:03:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phasianidae (Grouse, Partridges, Pheasants, Quail, Turkeys)
Info created by Pratechno - uploaded by Pratechno - nominated by Danu Widjajanto -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danu Widjajanto (talk) 12:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very beautiful photo but I am unsure that the image quality is at FP level especially seeing that peacocks are fairly common. Cmao20 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, not huge, but kind of mesmerizing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao. Gets unacceptably unsharp and noisy at right. Daniel Case (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Cmao. -- Karelj (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo March 2020-10a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2021 at 12:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Lamps
Info Minimalism again: just a street lamp at night. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Balanced and simple beauty. The delicate sky gives the image the wow, in my humble opinion. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm all for beautiful shots of ordinary objects, interesting shapes/patterns found in banal subjects, and minimalism, but I'm having trouble seeing the "wow" here. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same reason as Rhododendrites Buidhe (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Minimalism is nice, but editing should not be so minimal. You have a lot of chroma noise and few dust spots to clean. --Mile (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing, Mile. Editing was careful but dust spots are very difficult to discern in such a dark background. I will fix them later today. As for chroma noise, what I can see are very faint clouds on a very dark sky. But I'll give another try with a better monitor later. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info A new version was uploaded with the dust spots removed (thanks to your microscope!). No significant chrominance noise that I can see at 100%... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info I tried this yesterday, i croped to third, so center of bulb is on a third line, it works better. But i removed "o". --Mile (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Good thoughtful photo but I can't say the subject really holds any interest for me. Cmao20 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Typically alvesgasparian. I like.--Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't mind blown lights in general when they occur as part of a larger scene since they're very hard to avoid, but when it is the actual subject I think a better job could be done to control the highlights (e.g. HDR). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I respectfully disagree, a light is a light is a light. If anything on a photo is supposed to be blown, that should be … a light. In fact, being blown is the very nature of a light! Blown subjects are undesirable on a photo because they hide the detail. As far as I know, no present-day light sources have any kind of detail except, maybe, the old filament bulbs. Even in those cases, you would have to compensate so much that the light would no longer look like a light. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think if it's a small speck in the middle it's fine - the blown-out area here is a bit too large for my tastes. Also the lamp does have detail, as you can see in the bumpy surface in the non-blown-out parts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites. If the background were dark blue, perhaps. Wrt the blown area, I disagree with King of Hearts. When looking directly at a light source, the DR will exceed a JPG and the human eye would only perceive the bumpy surface away from the strongest glow. So I don't have a problem with the central area being blown. However, I'd expect it to be at FF in at least one colour channel rather than paper-white. Have the highlights been reduced in post, or Nikon's JPG capped the brightness? -- Colin (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, Colin. Yes, the highligths were very slightly reduced. But not too much, for the reason you invoked about the (non)response of the human eye. I could have manipulated the background to look like dark blue, instead of almost black. That possibility crossed my mind but I felt guilty with just the thought... By the way, I was scared to death by the number of characters in your comment (666), as if the devil himself had joined the discussion... :) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I shall take more care over my byte count in future! I only suggested blue if it was indeed the blue hour, and not to fake it. I think we have a tendency on Commons to be terrified of the blown areas (Lightroom makes them too easy to spot with red warning) and think reducing the highlights to eliminate that angry red warning will somehow improve the image. Of course highlight reduction can help at times, but I think we should let light sources burn brightly. I'd rather my screen was shining as bright as it could than some odd paper white. Maybe one day we'll see JPG replacement that can do HDR get adopted for Commons. -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Single-channel clipping would be fine for me as well, but not such a huge white area. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful weak oppose Compositionally it's great; I like the abstraction and the symbolism it creates when you consider when it was taken, at the beginning of a dark time. That said, I think it would have worked better with the sky behind it not quite so dark. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rhododendrites. If there was a little something extra, perhaps. Black on dark gray is also quite unappealing in my view. I made a similar shot two years ago, but never uploaded it (before today) because the wow is weak -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Rhododendrites. -- Karelj (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leo Gestel - Mallorca, Terreno - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2021 at 20:40:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors#Towns
Info created by Leo Gestel - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable for commons and worth a feature, imho. More art, please :) -- Radomianin (talk) 21:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for the reasons above.--Jebulon (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. The reproduction does not feature the extreme resolution some other Google art reproductions have, but is still very good. --Aristeas (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not my style, but FP for sure. Cmao20 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Royal Albatross - east of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2021 at 13:16:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Diomedeidae_(Albatross)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support As a big wave seen the northern royal albatross, but great shot and very good quality -- Aichi Message me 13:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive looking image at first glance especially with the water droplets around. I have a bit of reservation regarding the DoF used, and also the overall color palette which makes the image a bit dull -- Dey.sandip (talk) 14:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive that you aligned the two on one focal plane. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exciting! I don't mind the colors - at first, I thought from the thumbnail that this was a black & white photo, and it would have been fine that way, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others above. Striking! -- Radomianin (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please notice we have two types of drops, some in the air, but some on the glass or lens too. They are different and this is visible. But I could not oppose for this !--Jebulon (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. it's always humbling to see a shot that I don't think I could reproduce if I tried. Some of it may be that JJ's equipment is at least six times as expensive as mine, but a lot of skill, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 00:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent angle and nice composition with the wave, very good catch -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even with an overcast day, this is an exceptional image. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support On looking at it further, there is enough wow, so I'll override minor reservations -- Dey.sandip (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts and Ikan. -Aristeas (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 16:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice shot. --Laitche (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good bird. --Trougnouf (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 28 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Diomedeidae_(Albatross)

Malaspina panoramas[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2021 at 22:10:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

No labels, slightly lower resolution than the others
Labelled, elevations are in m
Labelled, elevations are in ft

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps
Info PD-author 3D rendered panoramas of area around Malaspina Glacier; only difference is in resolution (slightly) and labelling. Since they're so similar I understand if I have to split this up and just choose one; created by Tom Patterson - uploaded & nominated by eviolite -- eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination actually, looking around at some archived FPCs such as this one, it seems that this is unacceptable as a set and may be better as "alternatives". I will nominate the meters one by itself, mentioning the others, promptly. eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Titian - Pope Paul III with his Grandsons Alessandro the young and Ottavio Farnese - WGA22985.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2021 at 21:34:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/People#Paintings
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 21:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 21:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I assume the cut heel on the bottom right is original.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sure, you can see the other copies for confirmation. thanks--Co mmon ists 09:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have taken the liberty to propose another, more specific gallery page. --Aristeas (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question I haven't been to the Capodimonte for years. Can anyone confirm that these colors and brightness are of greater or equal accuracy than those in other photos in Category:Pope Paul III and His Grandsons (Titian, National Museum of Capodimonte)? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the colours a bit, the other versions exaggerate the contrast a bit, but consider that it is an unfinished work, thank you. --Co mmon ists 23:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll Support. I didn't realize it was unfinished. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info Demoted/delisted to not featured per this and that discussion. --A.Savin 18:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Titian - Venus with a Mirror - Google Art Project.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2021 at 21:43:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Nudes
Info created by Titian - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know it is an old discussion, but I still don’t understand what we are supposed to judge here (and same for the nomination below). Should I vote against a work by Tiziano ? Should I say NO because I dislike cubism (below) ? Ridiculous. As the picture is taken by a bot with the maximum technical but automatic quality available (ok, there are men behind the machine blablabla), it is obviously excellent. Furthermore, I don’t understand why such a picture would benefit of a FP star. Of course I understand and agree with the upload in Commons of GoogleArt Project pictures, but they don’t need labels IMO. Do we have « nominated but not promoted as FP » GoogleArt Project pictures ? I cannot support, I cannot oppose, I can even not remain neutral. So I Abstain .--Jebulon (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info see here an example of a fail --Andrei (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info its sometimes about technical quality of reproduction. google art does not mean its great. curating skills and common sense are also applicable. for example, this institution has 80 items but i would consider nominating five. --Andrei (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think my answer, Jebulon, is that photography is partly for documentation, and this humongous, sharp reproduction is a great document. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support according to Ikan's argumentation. Sometimes I like a painting more, sometimes less. When I like it, the support is very clear. If I don't like it so much, but the resolution is outstanding, then I also support it because I have respect for the art and I am grateful that Commons is enriched with these works. Great art deserves a feature, regardless of personal taste. It is part of the cultural identity of mankind. This is just my humble opinion and an evaluation of the above comment. This painting I like, as well as the cubist work of Leo Gestel. Many regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment on Jebulon's thoughts: Yes, I do take into account my regard for an artwork and whether it's important in some way. I won't vote against a reproduction of a famous painting because I dislike the painting, but there are a lot of situations in which I don't vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive resolution, I enjoy the level of details and the paint cracks at full size -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 09:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible resolution, very useful to study Titian’s brushwork and the aging of the painting. --Aristeas (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely painting. Cmao20 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Nudes

File:Batalha September 2021-31a.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2021 at 19:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Monastery of Batalha, Portugal: cloister of D. João I. The building was started in 1386 and finished around 1517. The columns and decoration of the gothic arcs were added in the 16th century. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice layout but on closer inspection the blown highlights interfere enormously.--Ermell (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Question On what? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - A bit of blown sky coming through the openings is not the end of the world, but the lack of detail on the ground outside is a problem. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to Ermell's comment about overexposure: Would you happen to have any frames from further down? Right now it looks a bit top-heavy with so much vertical space at the top and no floor at the bottom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it would be better with a bit more space at the bottom. But I don't have it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose it’s a pity but the blown ground (plus the blown parts of the columns) and the vertically unbalanced composition spoil it. Even if you crop the top quarter out, the foreground bottom would still be missing. --Kreuz schnabel 10:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think you are right about the ground being overexposed and I apologize for not having valued the issue. But I still think this is a gorgeous view. Thanks for the comments. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it is a great view, just a shame about the exposure. I assume you don't have another shot with lower exposure? -- Colin (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ocean City beach and pier MD2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2021 at 20:36:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#United States of America
Info The beach at Ocean City, Maryland at first light, created by Acroterion - uploaded by Acroterion - nominated by Acroterion -- Acroterion (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Acroterion (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link was not working. I would suggest (and have changed it to) the “Bridges” gallery page because most FPs of piers etc. are on that page, too. Of course if the beach is more important than the pier, the link would be Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United States (no Maryland section yet). --Aristeas (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Painterly composition with subtle light and nice textures in the waves. But the image quality is IMO a little on the low side. Cmao20 (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A good QI indeed, but not outstanding for my taste.--Jebulon (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao20. The waves are beautiful, the lonely pier is nice. --Aristeas (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. Perhaps if the people on the beach were more purposeful. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Has a great mood, but per others that's not enough to carry it. Reminds me of one of those paintings you study in an art history class to gain an understanding of how the artist or style developed but that isn't one of his/her/its recognized masterpieces. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with the other views. One or two figures with purpose on the beach could have elevated the photo. -- Dey.sandip (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon. -- Karelj (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:여주 영릉과 영릉 세종 영릉 재실.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 13:43:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#South_Korea
Info created by w:Cultural Heritage Administration - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 13:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 13:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent drone photo. Cmao20 (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good illustrative viewpoint. -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support It’s great that South Korea has got a Cultural Heritage Administration which publishes good photos of cultural heritage monuments under a free license. I wish we would have something like this e.g. here in Germany. Germany is a rich country, but nevertheless most photos published or used by the offical departments are mediocre, and they (almost) never use free licenses (they use them for some statistical data and other stuff, but AFAIK almost never for photos). --Aristeas (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. In German there are very enthusiastic users and thanks to them their cultural heritages are uploaded in great quality. I always thank for your great contributions. Sincerely,— Sadopaul 💬 📁 07:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought I wasn't going to like it because of the big brown area at lower right but ... wow! What detail on the buildings! They look almost like a model. Daniel Case (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral IÇm a bit surprised about the feedback here, I think that quality, even for a drone, could be better, it looks pretty noisy to me. The subject and compo are, no the other side, great. Poco a poco (talk) 07:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, St.-Viktor-Kirche, Kronleuchter -- 2021 -- 6715 (bw).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 14:35:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 14:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 14:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image of great quality. I like the B&W here. It is a pity than the statue needs a bit of cleaning (spider webs). Regards, Yann (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. I think it highlights the age of the figure. The whole room was full of dust and cobwebs. In my opinion, it would be an unsightly falsification to remove dust from a single detail. --XRay 💬 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination May be it's not interesting enough for an FPC. Thank you. --XRay 💬 06:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /XRay 💬 05:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Afgevallen kastanje van een paardenkastanje (Aesculus) 10-10-2020 (d.j.b.) 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2021 at 16:39:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Sapindaceae
Info Fallen chestnut from a Aesculus . Focus stack of 12 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done -- Radomianin (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support ==Michielverbeek (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah, that’s autumn! --Aristeas (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Next POTY finalist? 🌰 :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent colours Cmao20 (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bad Rappenau - Heinsheim - Burg Ehrenberg - Ansicht von Norden (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2021 at 15:25:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#Germany
Info Ehrenberg Castle near Heinsheim, Bad Rappenau, Germany, seen from the north. Ehrenberg Castle is situated on a hill overlooking the Neckar valley (left) and is said to have been founded in the early 12th century. The Bergfried (keep) was built in 1235 and is still 50 m high today; note the tree growing on it ;–). Around the keep is the inner bailey from the 12th and 13th centuries, which today (with the exception of the high gable on the left) has fallen into ruins. The outer bailey was built in the 17th and 18th centuries, has been preserved and is still partly inhabited. – This is certainly not the most magnificent castle in Germany, but it was a respectable castle and I like the combination of buildings from different eras and in different states. All by me, --Aristeas (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aristeas (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful composition.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 18:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Famberhorst -- Radomianin (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 16:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Works better in full-res. Sky color seems a little overdone, but I've seen a lot worse. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice motif and strong image quality. Cmao20 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Daniel Case; calming motif and colors, nothing oversharpened, i would just put temp of sky a bit lower. --Mile (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Daniel, Mile: Thank you for your reviews! However fullfilling that request is much more difficult than one may expect. The colour of the sky is at least partly due to the polarizer I had to use. When I dial down the temperature of the sky the colour does not become better, as one may expect, but much more unrealistic. After several unsuccessful attempts I have now (1) moved the colour balance of the sky a bit more towards magenta and (2) reduced the saturation and contrast in the topmost part of the sky. The result seems at least reasonable to me. Is the result going into the direction you mean? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aristeas i thought Cyan went down. Now at least more realistic for me. At the end, the photographer must enjoy his own shot, don't suffer for FP. --Mile (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dragon on the Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2021 at 10:50:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Slovenia
Info Dragon on the Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana). Windy, rainy day + ND filter. Tripod shot. All by --Mile (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a “glow” around the dragon’s tongue which looks like an error, I would remove it. --Aristeas (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like that he's got wet spots from the rain. But the composition with the background isn't ideal, and you are missing his tail. The light isn't spectacular. If I look at File:Dragon on the Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana).jpg, I wonder about some other composition choice. Perhaps a focal length and angle-of-view could get the wing to point at the spire and achieve as much to the right of the dragon as possble, while avoiding the street sign. -- Colin (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition issue. The building near the tail of the dragon is distracting -- Dey.sandip (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others – quality as such is really good but the dull light, distracting background and cut-off tail spoil it I’m afraid. May I ask what you used the ND filter for, what benefit did you get from the longer exposure time? --Kreuz schnabel 15:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Compo is "ideal" to the degree we have (trafic, people, signs). For beter i would need higher position. Tail goes behind at that spot, it not possible to get it all from that spot. Glow at tongue - i highlighted mouth. Kreuz benefit of wind+clouds+ND - you get soft and nice back, clouds dont appear as sharp structure, easier to stay focused on main subject - dragon. Light-dull, i wanted that way. --Mile (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I’d say to soften the clouds you’d need exposure times of one minute or so, they really don’t move that far within 0,8 s. --Kreuz schnabel 20:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly a bit surprised this is not doing better, a very striking composition and the light isn't so much dull as brooding, which really helps the atmosphere. A blue sky would not work as well for this motif. Cmao20 (talk) 07:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. Looking at some of the other shots in Category:Dragons on the Dragon Bridge (Ljubljana), blue sky and the harsh shadows that come with it don't really work with this subject, imho. Those are happy tourist snaps of a statue, while this one shows a dragon. --El Grafo (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 16:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mile, you are very careful about small details of photos, something I appreciate very much. So could you please have a look at my hint given 3 days ago? I would like to support the photo, but I cannot do so as long as the “glowing” tongue looks like an editing error. --Aristeas (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aristeas i covered that glow. --Mile (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! – Support per El Grafo. --Aristeas (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Distracting background, and the sky is not fun. Dull light, also -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a FP to me, I had to heard in my castle candidate above that everything is about light and I don't find this subject by far as interesting as the old well reserved castle from a nice angle. Furthermore I find the buildings in the background disturbing and when I visited this spot I found the tails of the dragons embracing the pillars very interesting, which isn't depicted here. Poco a poco (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco --Andrei (talk) 12:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Will do renomination (same photo) --Mile (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viviparus georgianus shells, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 06:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Shell of an extant specimen
Shell of a fossil specimen from the Pleistocene

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Viviparidae
Info The set shows a shell of an extant specimen of the freshwater snail Viviparus georgianus and a fossil shell of the same species from the Lower Pleistocene (about 1 - 2 Million years old); created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- As good as other shell images by Llez :) -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Even better than most. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good set. Cmao20 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aussichtsturm Bistumshöhe, 1901201452, ako-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 19:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
Info Looking upwards at the inside of an observation tower in Germany. Nice composition and something a little different. created by Code - uploaded by Code - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful inner spiral.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Famberhorst. Good composition and perfect light. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ 61.69.172.53 00:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

?? Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support A little unsharp down at the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this, too. It looks to me like it leans to the left as it goes up, but I think that's a bit of an optical illusion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome vista and I think the DoF is pretty good considering the challenges of the shot. Buidhe (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Boy wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt - Inbound8844811027769309500.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 21:59:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Children
Info I've been meaning to nominate some pictures from the most recent Wiki Loves Africa competition, and thought I'd start with this one. A boy wearing a protective mask during the COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt. It's straightforward high-contrast drama, with an expression that could be fearful or hopeful. Created and uploaded by Eman arab, nominated by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I saw this one, and I thought to nominate it too. Great portrait. Yann (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking, and a portrait for our times. I could easily see this taking off as a crystallization of the moment and being reproduced years later to represent the COVID plague years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive photo for me. --Famberhorst (talk) 04:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please consider renaming the file after the completion of this nom --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Martin Falbisoner: I renamed it before nominating. :) It was just "Inbound8844811027769309500". When there's some combination of letters/numbers in the filename, I usually retain them when renaming just in case the photographer uses them for anything. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I see :-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nom. Clearly "hopeful" rather than "fearful" for me due to the lighting. --El Grafo (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per others. Per Ikan, has iconic (ahem) potential ... Very baroque, looks like something a great painter of a past century might have chosen to depict if they could see our times, because I, too, can see both the hope and the fear of a time standing in darkness looking up to the light. Should be used a lot more around the projects. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:White-throated sparrow (94058)2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 22:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Passerellidae_(New_world_sparrows)
Info White-throated sparrow, seemingly deep in thought. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe the bird is being reflective; we don't know, but I do know this is a fine portrait. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The bright OOF area in the bottom left is a bit distracting at thumbnail size, but at close-up the expression is too good not to support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Clément Bardot (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo. Cmao20 (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Holy Cross church in Rottweil (8).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2021 at 20:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
strong oppose Come on Tournasol7, this is playing the game for gold stars, not selecting the finest images on Commons. We have Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holy Cross church in Rottweil (9).jpg already, and all you did here was turn your zoom lens from 18mm to 35mm. The other photo is better, as that concrete upper floor doesn't do the church any favours. -- Colin (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, this isn't as good a composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schwarzes Tor in Rottweil (1).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2021 at 20:10:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI. Not exceptional light and the subject isn't that interesting. File:Hauptstraße in Rottweil mit Schwarzem Tor - panoramio.jpg would suggest the whole street is a better subject than just one gate tower. -- Colin (talk) 07:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Temporale in arrivo su Firenze sud.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2021 at 13:32:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Clouds
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by PROPOLI87 -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting clouds, but dull composition --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Michiel. Definitely a good photo to my mind, but not a great one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Malaspina-panorama-meters.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2021 at 22:47:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of North America
Info detailed 3D render of Malaspina Glacier and surrounding area. This image has two other versions that can be alts - File:Malaspina-panorama-feet.jpg displays elevation in ft and File:Malaspina-panorama-no-type.jpg has no labels but is slightly smaller - created by Tom Patterson (released PD at website) - uploaded & nominated by eviolite -- eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- eviolite (en.wp) (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and detailed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH, and let's feature it now, before the figures in it become inaccurate from continued warming and resulting ice melt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Got lost looking at this last night ... I was hoping it extended far enough south to show Mount Fairweather. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scilla siberica flower - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2021 at 06:18:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Asparagaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely background, especially -- Dey.sandip (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Señor Aluminio (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dey.sandip -- Radomianin (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beacon Stawa Młyny, Świnoujście.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2021 at 15:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Poland
Info Maritime sign "Stawa Młyny" in Świnoujście, Poland. It serves as a beacon for ships and is also part of the official logo for the city and tourist region of Świnoujście. Created, uploaded and nominated by Radomianin -- Radomianin (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support not what I'm usually drawn to, but the light is really appealing, and the composition with the sky works well — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the composition; the low horizon and the placement of the sign (not on the ordinary rule-of-thirds line, but intentionally a bit more to the right) emphasize the wide open sea horizon into which most of the people are looking, too. The placement of the people is also very good, like staffage figures in a painting they do not distract, but underline the composition. --Aristeas (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aristeas' points persuaded me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Aristeas, although I'd have like to see more pixels/detail Poco a poco (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Castillo de Óbidos, Óbidos, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 33.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 20:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Portugal
Info Castle of Óbidos, , Portugal. The well preserved medieval castle is the result of the fortification undertaken by Muslims in the 8th century and later expansions over the centuries. I nominate this image as FP because the subject is spectacular and the perspective seen from this angle over the hill and the wide angle is strong IMHO. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High-quality, but not FP with that sky, in my opinion. I'd love it if you had a chance to reshoot in more appealing conditions. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ I was on the fence about this one but I agree with Ikan, great composition and quality but the sky is so dull. I am not insisting that all shots have to be under a bright blue sky, but this isn't a dark brooding sky either, it's just grey. Strong QI but I honestly feel like it shouldn't be FP seeing someone could easily reshoot under better light. Cmao20 (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this, I'm going to think more carefully about whether I see this image as FP or not. I am beginning to see the composition as good enough to outweigh the light. Cmao20 (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It is good, but I am still not 100% convinced it is an FP. Cmao20 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support actually, I like the lighting/sky. Buidhe (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky is good here, with all the clouds leading towards the center. An effective composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. – There is a blue FFP1 mask hanging on the rocks almost in the centre. I don’t mind it, but maybe you want to clone it out ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe my opinion kind of doesn't matter because I've opposed on other grounds, but I would oppose cloning that out, as it shows the times. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, sorry, so please forget my hint. I had pointed out that mask because I remember people opposing to FP candidates because of some minor items of waste here or there on the ground and I wanted to avoid that. --Aristeas (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with cloning out occasional litter or birds in the sky (sometimes they just look like streaks). These things are not the subject and are here one moment and blown away the next. If the subject was about tourist mess, or "the times" we live in, then of course we'd keep that stuff, but the subject is an old castle. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan. --Ivar (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Photography is about light. The light here is meh. Plus the entrance track on the right is unappealing. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Convento de Jesús, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-09, DD 75-77 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 20:54:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Portugal
Info View of the Cruzeiro de Setúbal (Wayside cross of Setúbal) and the Monastery of Jesus, Setúbal, Portugal. The wayside cross dates from the 16th century, while the monastery, founded in 1490, is one of the oldest buildings in Manueline style (Portuguese version of Gothic) and served as a monastery of Poor Clare nuns. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful light and colors, only slight damage from the bit of modern building on the right (but that's reality). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, good composition, quality and light. Cmao20 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition is awkward with features on the left and right that detract from the image. The nearby cross looms large, emphasised by the wide-angle perspective. The colourspace is wrong (ProPhotoRGB) and should be sRGB. ProPhotoRGB is too huge for 8-bit JPG leading to posterising and incorrect colour and nobody has a display that wide anyway. The scene could probably have benefited from HDR to retain some detail on the highlighted bricks. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The file name would imply that HDR has in fact been used. But I guess you could argue the scene could have benefited from *more* HDR :) Cmao20 (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as now two of you complain about the building on the right, I cropped it out along with a chunck on the left (and I used sRGB to export it). Thanks for the hints. Poco a poco (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also added an additional version with a new HDR merge, detail is better for highlights now, does it also apply to the overall result? --Poco a poco (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did complain slightly about the building on the right, but I think the more generous crop on the right was better, even with the bit of the modern building. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for elaborating your point. I'd like to hear other opinions before I offer an alt version Poco a poco (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking again at it I would second Ikan’s view. The building at the right was ugly, but overall the more generous crop was more balanced. But more voices are welcome ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 07:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Love the colors and the work that went into this, but like Colin I find the composition awkward. Daniel Case (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Daniel Case --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan (for the cropped version) -- Radomianin (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Schlosskirche, Bad Mergentheim, Southwest view 20150727 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2021 at 14:21:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info IMO an amazingly detailed and beautiful photo of a church facade with rich colours and outstanding image quality. created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Underexposed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see your point in that the sky is quite a deep, dark blue. But I have checked the histogram and there is no loss of detail in the shadows (which I think you can see when you zoom in), so I would say it is maybe a tad on the dark side but not underexposed. Let's see what others think. DXR, I am pinging you in case there are any changes you'd like to make Cmao20 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This scene has somewhat low dynamic range, so there is a range of exposures which would not cause clipping on either end. It doesn't mean that all those exposures should be subjectively considered "correct". A bright facade should be much lighter than this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI. I agree the sky looks oddly dark. I think "under exposed" is technically incorrect as one may well expose to avoid clipping or to reduce shadow noise and indent to adjust afterwards to produce an image that appears how one perceived it. The actual exposure isn't really that important outside of extremes. -- Colin (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point about exposure. What would an FP image of a church facade look like to you? I feel like it's superior to many photos already in the category, compare here or here which are both less sharp and detailed at full size and IMHO are less interesting motifs. Cmao20 (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with photographing tall facades is getting far enough back. This seems there isn't enough room to breath, and the sky clouds just seem to add to the feeling for me. The photos you linked are quite old and I don't think the Warsaw photo would scrape through today. The other one has more interesting features. But maybe tastes vary about what is appealing. -- Colin (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fair review. Cmao20 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I comprehend Colin’s “there isn't enough room to breath”, but it could make a difference if one would brighten up the image a bit, as King of Hearts has suggested – IMHO this would give the photo also a lighter, more relaxed mood. So I would suggest to DXR to try it out. --Aristeas (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many thanks for the nomination and reviews. I have brightened the picture by 0.4 EVs, which indeed looks a bit more appropriate on my screen. The facade can only be photographed from a courtyard, so naturally there is a limit to how far back you can move for the photo. I feel that there isn't too much distortion, but personally, I would think of this as a good QI, not necessarily a FP. --DXR (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KoH, is this change enough for you to support? Cmao20 (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DXR I could withdraw if you really don't see it as FP, but seeing support currently outnumbers opposition I intend to let it run for now unless you tell me otherwise. Cmao20 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the clouds, which look like cotton balls. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Beautiful in my eyes. --Aristeas (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Also, pretty but not a great composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 08:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the clouds. --Yann (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cmglee London Embassy Gardens pool polariser.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2021 at 19:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
Info created and uploaded by Cmglee, nominated by Yann -- Yann (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I immediately said Wow! when I saw this image. -- Yann (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Really makes the people look miniature. Shame that it is not of better quality. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator. It was also nominated on en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Polarised_London_Sky_Pool, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 20:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that 4 November 2021 marks the 323rd anniversary of the death of Rasmus Bartholin who discovered birefringence. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 02:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree about the quality, but the unusual angle makes the picture special. --Ermell (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the wow factor is definitely there, but I'm not sure about the quality. I believe it would be possible to (re)take similar picture with better quality, hence weak oppose. Buidhe (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per King of Hearts and Ermell. --Aristeas (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Buidhe. --A.Savin 09:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Really interesting and a possible FP. IMO too much technical problems - for example low sharpness. And IMO the minor disturbing elements should be cloned out. --XRay 💬 19:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree the subject it has potential, but isn't captured well enough for FP. Perhaps just one swimmer would be best, like a specimen in amber. The image as a whole seems under exposed. Cmglee, I don't know what software you use to edit your photos, but this one has no exif data at all. It really needs at least a minimal set of data, including colour space, otherwise it isn't guaranteed to render well on different devices. -- Colin (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair points about the technicalities. I think having one vs five swimmers is subjective. I prefer the look of the people in different poses. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 00:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, just too unsharp. A shame because the middle section would make a pretty cool album cover. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't realise how soft my lens with polariser is. I can try again next time I'm in London though doubt I can get such luck with the arrangement of the subjects, especially the man looking back through the glass. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 00:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose exactly per Daniel and Colin, but please try again, the motif is clearly FP-worthy. Cmao20 (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Not going to succeed. Yann (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oprire sovietica, Grinauti, Raionul Rascani, Republica Moldova Soviet Bus Stop, Grinauti, Rascani District, Republic of Moldova (50169731262).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2021 at 12:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Transport#Bus_stops
Info created by Photobank MD - uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Arbitrary crop. Not sure this is allowed per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Moldova#Freedom of panorama. -- Colin (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. Definitely sure this isn't allowed per our informal community standards of what makes a featured picture . Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly agree with the above, nice subject but the crop is pretty arbitrary. Cmao20 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 16:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sgt. Samuel Smith, African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2021 at 19:13:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1850-1900
Info created by unknown photographer, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk)
Support -- Yann (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not FP for me. More space is taken up by the ornate frame than the old photograph (whereas most reproductions we see here of a painting/photograph have the frame cropped out, to focus on the subject.) The old photograph itself is not exceptional quality for the era it's made in, or otherwise extraordinary, so I don't see what makes this FP quality. Buidhe (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Buidhe has made a good case against this image. Well, I see it the other way around ;–). The detailed reproduction of the ornate frame which fits the old photograph perfectly in style and size makes this photo special. The old photograph itself is of good quality, I guess it is just (because of the thick glass) a bit out of focus. The theme is also important: the old photograph with its nostalgic frame reminds us of how long how many African Americans have served their country faithfully, but are still not fully respected and acknowledged by many of their fellow citizens. --Aristeas (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ambrotypes (also modern ones) are never really in focus by our standards that are based on totally different technical expectations and possibilities --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, thank you very much for the explanation! --Aristeas (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Aristeas --Kritzolina (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support After comparison with the original, I think the restoration was well handled. Very expressive faces. Good quality in my opinion for the period, except the girl at the right a bit blurry, but that's not crippling, since the three other people are okay. Concerning the huge black and gold frame, I just find it great -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas and Falbisoner. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas and Basile -- Radomianin (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the historical interest. Cmao20 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually like it with the frame shown. It shows this portrait is treasured. Daniel Case (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the explanation, Martin. A very striking portrait and I like the historic frame, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Yann: the description says unidentified yet about a week ago you changed it to Sgt Samuel Smith of the 119th USCT. How did you figure that out? The description is wrong in other ways, it says likely one of the Maryland regiments, but the 119th was organized in Kentucky, early 1865. Seven Pandas (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Seven Pandas: See the description in other versions: File:Unidentified African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters.png, File:Unidentified African American soldier in Union uniform with wife and two daughters LCCN2010647216.jpg. Yann (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One says nothing on this and the other two say unverified identification. Seven Pandas (talk) 01:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources available here appear a bit thin, admittedly. But they offer more than nothing. And even if the suggested description turned out to be factually false and hence the depicted persons were to remain anonymous, this nom would deserve its star nevertheless, at least imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if the identification is so shaky and that shaky identification is in the file name. So I have to oppose on that sole point. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose see reason immediately above. Seven Pandas (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 14:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for including the frame. When the Library of Congress writes "Frame: Berg 7-22", it refers to a specific image and number in the book Nineteenth Century Photographic Cases and Wall Frames by Paul Berg, which is a reference work for people who work with or collect images from the Daguerreotype- and Ambrotype-Era. The extensive list of cases and frames in "the Berg" is a tool to date works from the first years of photography like this (only very few Daguerreotypes or Ambrotypes have information about the date the image was taken on the back of the case or frame). So, without the frame, important information is missing. I encourage everyone to not crop pictures like this. Best --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1850-1900

File:Bloem van een Helenium. 03-07-2021 (actm.).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2021 at 04:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales#Subfamily : Asteroideae
Info Flower of a Helenium 'Flamingo' in a misty early morning. Focus stack of 17 photos. Good butterfly and insect plant.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Especially attractive with the water drops. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. Great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. Your series of flowers is so beautiful! --Aristeas (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a dust spot below the flower, and can you do something about the noise? --A.Savin 09:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Removed spot, and noise reduction . Thank you for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one more note added with stacking issue (blurred details). --Ivar (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. correction Thank you for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry, but I don't see much improvement. --Ivar (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you describe the problem in more detail. then i can fix it better.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment details of petals are lost (noted area is blurry). --Ivar (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Correction detail petals. Thank you.
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The noise is not gone, just a bit softened. Regards --A.Savin 12:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. New attempt. New happiness?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Co mmon ists 14:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --A.Savin 07:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting but I wonder why the small resolution for this kind of shot Poco a poco (talk) 08:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: I cropped the photo square. Then you lose part of the photo on the left and right.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:Geranium pratense Obervellach 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2021 at 04:53:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Geraniaceae
Info Meadow Crane's-bill (Geranium pratense), all by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 04:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Montreal Observation Wheel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 12:03:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Canada
Info created & uploaded by Maksimsokolov - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be a bit brighter. Though I am quite surprised that f/2.8 on full frame could be so sharp corner to corner... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition and obvious wow-factor but I feel like the colours are way too saturated to be honest, it looks a bit garish. Cmao20 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, per Cmao20. Saturation and contrast. -- Colin (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hm, well, indeed. But IMHO this photo is too nice. Maksim, could you have a look? --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors could be toned down a bit, but they don't bother me as much as the very busy composition. Feels like it would make a good postcard, but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Verticals leaning in (background, both sides). And please turn the contrast/saturation slider a few light years to the left, yes. --Kreuz schnabel 19:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for the delay. I have asked Maksimsokolov about this photo on his talk page and (in short) he does not want to change this photo because “it contains the mood of Montreal I felt that day”. IMHO this is a perfectly valid point of view. First, we can see on other photos (e.g. on this POTY 2020 finalist ;–) how colourful autumn actually can be in that province of Canada. Second, we know at least since the discussions about the subjective photography movement by Otto Steinert et all. that photography can be seen as expression of the artist’s mood, impressions and ideas (and not as a mere reflection of reality). The unfortunate point is that in this case the result has by chance some similarity with a postcard; this may explain why Steinert et all. had most success with rather abstract and unconventional subjects). And, of course, this is not the kind of photography we are used to here on the FPC page ;–). The style followed by most of us, including me, has more similarity with the Neue Sachlichkeit (normally insufficiently translated with “New Objectivity”; but Sachlichkeit means also simplicity, rationality, functionality, sense of realism, matter-of-factness). --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support due to my reasoning above. --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated and excessive contrasts -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wall Graffiti Bangalore.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 06:48:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Frescos and murals
Info All by me -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting composition, unfortunately 1/160 s was a bit too long to freeze the walker. The difference in sharpness with the background is explicit. The cables and rubble on the ground are distracting for me. Although one can see these wires as an extension of the painting, they're also kind of ugly in themselves -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The wires are part of the graffiti. They are restraining the vehicle from running over the scared looking figure below -- Dey.sandip (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Wires", I'm talking about those on the ground. Real wires, not painted -- Basile Morin (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like the photo. Whether it's right for FP, I don't know. My question is whether this is COM:GRAFFITI or COM:MURAL (not all of it appears to be in the frame), given COM:FOP India. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a graffiti on a public wall by a public road. I don't much about the COM:FOP India, so whatever is decided based on that is OK with me -- Dey.sandip (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Weak because the walker is blurred, otherwise good composition and colours. Cmao20 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have proposed another gallery link: IMHO this would fit better into the “Frescos and murals” section than into the “Places” gallery. (We have no “Graffiti” gallery, therefore this does not mean a decision regarding the question whether this is COM:GRAFFITI or COM:MURAL ;–).) --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well-done, deservedly a QI and a good VI candidate, but like Rhododendrites I don't see an FP here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mile (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Korfu (GR), Korfu, Alte Festung -- 2018 -- 1137.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2021 at 14:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Greece
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 14:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 14:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great but simple composition with strong visual impact on the viewer, imho. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. Cmao20 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors, ~~i would clear that spot (above left)~~. Lamp could be more sharp but compo/colors made it. --Mile (talk) 09:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both done/improved. Thank you. --XRay 💬 09:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support The light/shadows on the ceiling really make this IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unfortunately the light bulb is not exactly centered ;-) --Llez (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Likely meaningless oppose at this point: Great composition but the lantern is unsharp. 02:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel Case (talk • contribs)
Support Quality and Dof are not among the finest on Commons but the compo and result definitely is, great shot! Poco a poco (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like minimalist images, in particular when it gets you wondering about what you're actually looking at. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Le Jules Verne, salle Quai Branly, Paris 2019.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2021 at 08:01:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#France
Info created by Stephan Juillard - uploaded by Lisacastelsdxo - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 05:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great motif and composition, but I wish I could see this view in light that isn't hazy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. I guess this place must have been one of Guy de Maupassant's favorite places to eat ... or would be if he were alive. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little unsharp but very impressive view. Cmao20 (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a smallish dust spot on the right side of the pane above the rightmost glass, above and to the left of the tower. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banner of the Moors (1212).svg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2021 at 18:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Patterns
Info created by Goran tek-en - uploaded by Goran tek-en - nominated by Goran tek-en -- --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --A.Savin 18:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batalha September 2021-4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2021 at 19:06:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Portugal
Info Main façade of Monastery of Batalha, Portugal. It was built from 1386 to 1517, to celebrate the victory over the Spanish army in the battle of Aljubarrota (1385). All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice angle, motif, and resolution, but the harsh shadows from mid-day lighting don't work for me. Btw the recorded time seems wrong. --Trougnouf (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version uploaded without the blurred central part. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The colors are a huge improvement but the crop is now pretty tight in front of the statue. Would it be possible to have the best of both? --Trougnouf (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, this is a different set of images. Better to have the statue as is than to crop too close to the building. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support So much better than the other version! I wasn't sure about that one, but when I saw the thumbnail for this I said out loud to myself "Isn't that amazing?" It's a huge file and does not disappoint at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very impressive and I want to support it, but isn’t the white balance a bit too cool and (at least in the sky) a bit too much on the magenta side? I know that midday light is cool, but here that coolness seems a bit too loud for me. Wouldn’t moving the white balance a bit give the image an even more appealing feeling? --Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lighting is tricky and there are pro and con to harder light for this kind of subject. Hard light from an angle can bring out the 3D details of a building like this. The totally soft light from an overcast day would be different, though looking at File:10083-Batalha (48985860766).jpg, can still be very detailed. -- Colin (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those "shouldn't work but it does" images. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info A new version was uploaded to address the concerns of Aristeas and Colin regarding light temperature. Although the impression I got when taking the photo was that the light was indeed too harsh and cold, a little adjustment was made to the white balance, which I justify with artistic liberty... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you very much! IMHO the building gains much from the slightly warmer colours, it gives the stone a more appealing touch. --Aristeas (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Daniel and Aristeas (for the improved version). -- Radomianin (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Detail is good given the filesize but both crops on the left and the right along with an uninteresting sky doesn't make it a FP to me. I understand the value of the building but I don't find it appealing, maybe just to much of the boring lateral view of the building (half left), sorry Poco a poco (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Close Wing mud-puddling position of Delias berinda (Moore, 1872) – Dark Jezebel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2021 at 16:32:14 (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 by Atanu Bose Photography - uploaded by Atanu Bose Photography - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel impelled to support this because of the image quality on the butterfly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Cmao20 (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --🚇郭守敬故乡人🚄 15:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Olive harvest combs. Anthidona. Greece.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2021 at 18:31:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Tools
Info all by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Combs for manual olives harvest playing with the sun and the shadows in autumn-- Jebulon (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support good idea, could also work in b&w --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer it in colour though, just because the colours are so nice. Cmao20 (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice idea.--Alexander-93 (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support They didn't have to be pinpoint sharp, but I wish the corners could be sharper than they are. Fortunately that does not ruin the image IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --🚇郭守敬故乡人🚄 15:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ruf CTR (2017) Motorworld Munich wide crop Classic-Gala 2021 1X7A0054.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2021 at 15:04:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info created by Alexander-93 - uploaded by Alexander-93 - nominated by Alexander-93 -- Alexander-93 (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexander-93 (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good shot but the chair is disturbing as well as the reflection of the next car on the door.--Ermell (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice car but not an extraordinary photograph IMO. Distracting chair -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The chair, indeed. --Cayambe (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don’t know nothing about cars (this one is beautiful), but I think it is quite impossible to take good (FP) pictures of such objects in a normal and urban background, which is always too distracting and preminent. If you will try to emphasize the car, I suggest a masking job, and an artificial or transparent background. Of course, this makes a very different image, but it could be interesting for a collection.--Jebulon (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That chair, could be moved in or out ? --Mile (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Alexander-93 (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cooper's hawk in Prospect Park (22513).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2021 at 21:46:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus_:_Accipiter
Info IMO another really nice bird portrait from Rhododendrites. No FPs of this species. I don't know if you'll think the background is too busy but we have promoted similar and it honestly doesn't bother me, the bird is still clearly distinguished from the background. created by Rhododendrites - uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support To my mind, the rhythm of the background helps the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rather interesting to have the light on just its face. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination. I just uploaded a new version which addresses some leftover noise. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts -- Radomianin (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nervous back, like Kaleidoscope (bottom). Crop could be beter - head. --Mile (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 18:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and King of Hearts. --Aristeas (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --🚇郭守敬故乡人🚄 15:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH--Jebulon (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Canis lupus - Wildpark Knüll 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2021 at 05:59:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Canidae (Canids)
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic and solid QI for sure but limited wow. Boring centered composition, overprocessed look at 100 percent, and the small foreground herbs obstructing the animal. --Kreuz schnabel 11:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light and distracting foreground -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kakerdaja bog, september 2021 0786.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2021 at 06:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Nature#Natural scenes
Info created by Sillerkiil - uploaded by Sillerkiil - nominated by Sillerkiil -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

-- Basile Morin (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Läbipaistev jää ja kalamees kevadisel Emajõel Tartus.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2021 at 06:47:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Tartu
Info created by Sillerkiil - uploaded by Sillerkiil - nominated by Sillerkiil -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

Poco a poco (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ponte Sant'Angelo in Rome at night (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2021 at 07:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Italy
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nice view. No way to get the whole pole (whatever it is) in the picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Distracting foreground. Unfortunately, cutting the bottom out will also section the nice reflection -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose a pity - an uwa lense would have helped solve all your problems, especially with the crops at both the bottom and the top. I really do like the vivid colors and the blue hour atmosphere you're offering. Been there, tried that and utterly failed myself almost 10 years ago (for different reasons). Your picture is so much better than mine, but you just didn't have my 10mm lense on an APS-C camera. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rulatajad Herne tänaval 2017. aasta märtsis.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2021 at 06:39:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Others
Info created by Sillerkiil - uploaded by Sillerkiil - nominated by Sillerkiil -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

Poco a poco (talk) 06:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vaade Rebala kivikirstkalmistule ülalt. 15. aprill 2021.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2021 at 06:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Other places
Info created by Sillerkiil - uploaded by Sillerkiil - nominated by Sillerkiil -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

-- Basile Morin (talk) 06:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, St.-Viktor-Kirche, Aufgang zum Kirchturm -- 2021 -- 6700-2 (bw).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 05:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's not a location of an Edgar Wallace film. ;-) -- XRay 💬 05:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 05:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive; captures the narrow space very well and makes a shudder ran down my spine ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works better in grayscale than it probably would in color. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. Just a few steps glimpsed through a doorway. Such a stairway is rather common and this is not an outstanding capture. -- Colin (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I agree with Colin, I see what you were trying to do but the composition is not outstanding enough to have the ominous atmosphere that would make this really work. Cmao20 (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I see FP potential in this item but the POV/compo is not projecting me into the picture Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Karelj (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many distracting and ugly parts. Crop a quarter left, a quarter right, a part of the top (…this electring cropped thing like a lamp?), and only keep the door itself. I think’it would be more appealing. Toughts about ? This photograph has potential IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I think about how I can bring them in and, if necessary, nominate them again later.--XRay 💬 19:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Go (13×13) -- 2021 -- 6741.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2021 at 12:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Toys
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dietmar, ich schlage vor, den Dateinamen und die Beschreibung noch dahingehend zu ergänzen, dass es sich hier um ein 13×13-Brett handelt und nicht etwa um das Standardbrett. Andernfalls könnten Betrachter denken, dass es sich hier um ein „normales“ Go-Spiel handelt. Beste Grüße, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. Wollen wir vielleicht mal ein Spiel wagen?[reply]

Danke für deinen Hinweis. Ich werde alles umbenennen und die Beschreibung anpassen. Das Ganze spiegelt meinen Kenntnisstand bezüglich Go wider. Es wäre vermessen, wenn ich mich als Anfänger bezeichnen würde. Eine Runde habe ich nach der Lektüre der Spielregeln gespielt und das war völlig daneben. (Und das übrigens noch auf der Rückseite des Bretts mit 9x9 Knotenpunkten.) Seither habe ich zumindest mit Hilfe von Videos mal einen Eindruck des Spiels bekommen. Mal schauen, wie es weiter geht. Mit Schach bin ich - als Vergleich - nie wirklich warm geworden und das, obwohl ich Strategie- und Taktikspiele (Brett- und Kartenspiele, nicht online) eigentlich mag. Ich befürchte, dass wir derzeit sehr ungleiche Partner wären, aber im Grunde bin ich nie abgeneigt, ein Spiel zu machen. --XRay 💬 05:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose The upper half of the board is unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm less bothered that the upper half is unsharp. The warm-grey background isn't appealing. In the end, it is a simple subject captured well enough, but not really saying "wow". -- Colin (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel and Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. It’s a solid QI and maybe VI but I don’t see anything outstanding here. Und ein komplett scharfes Bild eines so flächigen Objekts nach Scheimpflug wäre wirklich schöner – oder wahlweise eins mit deutlicher springender Schärfe, aber so ist das nix Halbes und nix Ganzes :) --Kreuz schnabel 09:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, a really good illustration but I think there surely must be a more compelling way of illustrating the subject for FP, it is not much more than an illustration. Cmao20 (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krakow- Collegium Maius 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2021 at 12:29:54 (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) 12:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO, a beautiful long exposure in a balanced composition. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI to me; perfectly nice but not that interesting a composition. Any number of snapshots of streets in a city like Siena might be more beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support charming, although I get Ikan's point. Buidhe (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. Ikan’s point about Siena etc. is good, but IMHO it takes more than a snapshot to get this mood really captured, so I see this more as a request to our fellow photographers in Italy (and to all visitors): please do not only look at the famous churches and castles, search more for such scenes in the side streets of Siena, Assisi, etc. … and upload them under a free license ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the purple tint. Brick usually doesn't look like this, even at night. With that being said, I like the atmosphere and would support if the color settings got corrected. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree the colours look odd. But in the end, this is a fairly typical street in an old part of town. What would elevate this would be a wet reflective ground and/or interesting people. On Commons, we generally avoid people, and that's a loss, because the best photographs elsewhere generally have them. -- Colin (talk) 07:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. I don't mind the color, actually, even if it looks like someone tried to compensate too much for the warmth of the light on the already warm bricks. And this idea might work, even without a wet surface or people. But what undoes this image for me is that it's a little busy and the shapes seem random. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colour, and the composition. It's a fairly typical street for sure, but the light is great and the atmosphere is FP-worthy. Cmao20 (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not a convincing angle in my view. I find the composition very average and the content unexceptional -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Cmao20. This is a FP to me. May I say that I am surprised with the number of « oppose » votes, and with the comments.--Jebulon (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:RhB Ge 4-4 II 614 Glacier Express on Landwasser Viaduct.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2021 at 11:03:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 11:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- Radomianin (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better with the moon in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice, although I think it would have been even nicer if the train was coming towards the viewer. I find the gangway connector at the end of the last carriage a little off-putting. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I imagine it was difficult to get to this viewpoint. However, to me the foreground on the left looks ugly and although I understand the reasons for this specific framing, I think we have better images of "red trains in mountain settings" --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Support interesting angle -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 16:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, the moon was what my eye was immediately drawn to for some reason Cmao20 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above + Frank Poco a poco (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander-93 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Santa Maria Novella (Florence).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2021 at 18:40:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Italy
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 18:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 18:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate lighting, disturbing vehicles and people, boring sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

+1 -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At least the trucks face each other, but I agree that this doesn't do justice to this church, which is my favorite in Florence. I'd like an angle such that the tower isn't partially blocked on the right, if possible, preferably no motor vehicles in front, and a much nicer sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry, but I agree the previous opinions. In the street immediately left, you can visit one of the oldest pharmacies in the world. Very beautiful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Maria_Novella_(pharmacy) --Jebulon (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 15:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Škofja Loka Castle (Škofjeloški grad, Slovenija).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2021 at 14:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Slovenia
Info Loka Castle, Slovenia. My work. -- Mile (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I don't think this benefits from 175MP and there isn't really pixel level detail to reward close inspection. It could be reduced 50% without any loss of information IMO, and would make for a more accessible image for re-use. It isn't the most detailed of subjects so all we get are an awful lot of beige and blue pixels. -- Colin (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For now, i will leave it since it is for Wiki Loves Monuments Slovenia. Otherwise, some 40-50 Mpx should be enough. I could do one stuff to have both, 1st original, after it downsized to "normal" size, both would be on same page, and link at "other version" to original. --Mile (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Actually i did it, downsized to 50%. Easy to open, but who want to judge on original here. I think even jury might have problem to open it. Only problem is to show original at "other version". --Mile (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose the quality is excellent but I'm not sold on the angle/composition, especially the tree on the left and the way the building looks cut off in that direction. I think a picture from this angle has a lot of potential although obviously that shot is not high-res enough for FPC. Buidhe (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good resolution and nice motif but I do miss an outstanding composition or light. Cmao20 (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iglesia del convento de Jesús, Setúbal, Portugal, 2021-09-10, DD 04-06 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2021 at 11:25:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Portugal
Info Altar of the church of the Monastery of Jesus, Setúbal, Portugal. The monastery, founded in 1490, is one of the oldest buildings in Manueline style (Portuguese version of Gothic) and served as a monastery of Poor Clare nuns. Poco a poco (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! The vault structure, in conjunction with the tile patterns, creates a harmonious geometric unity. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --🚇郭守敬故乡人 🚄 15:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 18:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good depiction of an important monument -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I said to you on your talk page, one of my favourites of your new candidates. Cmao20 (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 16:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Open wing basking position of Papilio polytes (Linnaeus,1758) – Common Mormon (Male).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2021 at 11:15:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)
Info created by Atanu Bose Photography - uploaded by Atanu Bose Photography - nominated by Bodhisattwa -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link refined by adding the appropriate section anchor. Your friendly FP gallery link service ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice butterfly but I am uncertain whether the sharpness and definition at full size is at the level of the best nowadays. Cmao20 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cmao20 --Poco a poco (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --🚇郭守敬故乡人🚄 15:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Cmao20, Aristeas and Poco a Poco.--Jebulon (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Papilionidae (Swallowtails)

File:Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) - in shell, shell cracked open, shelled, peeled.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2021 at 09:56:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 18:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is this a known cultivar we can identify? I know in the US, it's typical to be able to tell what cultivar it is, but I don't know if that's true elsewhere. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry, no cultivar info on the package in our country. --Ivar (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like peanuts but this is a great picture! Buidhe (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mandrill global.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2021 at 19:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones and fossils
Info created and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus, nominated by Yann (talk)
Support Very high resolution, and good quality. High EV.-- Yann (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The phantom white line across much of the upper part should be removed. Archaeodontosaurus, would you like to try your hand at that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Done Thanks to Yann for this nomination and to Ikan Kekek for his formidable eye.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann -- Radomianin (talk) 08:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Schnobby (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remembers me my job (private joke).--Jebulon (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 07:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Martyrdom of St Lucia - Luca Giordano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2021 at 14:40:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity
Info created by Commonists - uploaded by Commonists - nominated by Commonists -- Co mmon ists 14:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Co mmon ists 14:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely painting and very good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support My favorite art --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 22:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Seems to have a lot of artifacts in the darker parts of the corners. Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, it's probably the texture of the canvas. Thanks anyway.--Co mmon ists 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 07:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Religion#Christianity

Info Demoted/delisted to not featured per this and that discussion. --A.Savin 18:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akelei, zaadboxen. 28-08-2021. (d.j.b) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2021 at 05:05:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info Opened seed boxes of a Aquilegia. Focus stack of 20 photos.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Co mmon ists 19:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another sockpuppet of Livioandronico2013. - Benh (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support How dare I play in the same contest ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Cmao20 (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Algar do Carvao, isla de Terceira, Azores, Portugal, 2020-07-25, DD 68-70 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2021 at 11:48:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Portugal
Info Algar do Carvão (in Portuguese Blackened Crease), Terceira Island, Azores, Portugal. The image shows the aprox. 50 metres (160 ft) long Boca do Algar (in Portuguese "Mouth of the Cavern") viewed from the bottom of an ancient volcanic vent. The site located in the center of the island has become a peopular touristic magnet. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and has the wow effect --Aloxe (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question Definitely has wow. Have you tried denoising the dark areas more? It makes sense to brighten them to get the geological details, but at full size (and somewhat below), the noise/banding is pretty distracting. If denoising affects the detail too much, the top could possibly withstand a small crop? It has enough wow that I'm undecided even with the noise. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites you were right, noise was too visible, I reduced it and opted also for a slight crop at the top, what do you think? --Poco a poco (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, noise notwithstanding, although if you can reduce it more go right ahead. Was it raining when you took this? Because I can't imagine any other explanation for those short radial light-colored lines throughout the image.
This looks like one of those "portal to another dimension" shots in sci-fi movies. Daniel Case (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sky in the middle looks unnatural, as it is a featureless greyish white but not completely blown out. Could you perhaps reprocess the HDR to make it look more natural? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
King of Hearts: I've uploaded a new version to address that issue, what do you think? Poco a poco (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the big “wow” effect and the good quality (given the extreme contrast of this scene!). I would like to second King of Hearts’ suggestion. --Aristeas (talk) 10:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment something went wrong with postprocessing. Photo has significalntly lost the sharpness on the foreground and there are artifacts on the highlight areas. --Ivar (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ummh, yes, you were right, Ivar, I improved the denosing mask so that no areas with detail are affected what resulted in some strange spots (you call them artifacts) and unsharp areas, better now? --Poco a poco (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support better yes, but the overexposed sky is quite dominant. --Ivar (talk) 10:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Needs a bit more love. Definitely has the wow-factor for FP Cmao20 (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I wish the white sky wasn't bleeding into the surrounding foliage as much, but I do keep coming back to this … --El Grafo (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for the overall wow factor — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meiræ 13:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Illustration free-diver swimming in water.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2021 at 14:43:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Others
Info created by Goran tek-en - uploaded by Goran tek-en - nominated by Goran tek-en -- --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how to evaluate vector graphics here. If it's a question of usefulness, that's more for VI? I don't feel like I know what makes for a high quality vector, but I don't get a sense of "wow" here that's typically needed for FP, sorry. Stopping short of opposing because, again, I'm not sure. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Rhododendrites I have noticed that in all three FP, QI, VI people don't really know how to judge SVG images (vector graphic). I don't know if we have to add information regarding it because for us who create SVG work it's a bit of a problem. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info @Goran tek-en Usefull as a svg graphic, in this probably more VI for .svg. --Mile (talk) 16:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mile. Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iniö Church 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2021 at 06:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Finland
Info created, uploaded & nominated by kallerna —kallerna (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seven Pandas (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, just a QI IMO. Composition is also a bit left-heavy, with too much empty space on the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose exactly per KoH. And please crop out the cut-off twigs on the right edge. --Kreuz schnabel 20:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Proposing crop per last two opposes. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would definitely be an improvement, but it wouldn't be enough to change my vote as church FPs are a dime a dozen and this one has nothing setting it apart such as beautiful lighting/clouds or very high resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear King of Hearts, sorry, but the phrase “church FPs are a dime a dozen” seems very derogatory to me and is an offence to all creators of FPs showing churches, even to the ones who created the very best pictures, e.g. Diliff. I would be happy if good photographs of churches would be that cheap as “a dime a dozen”, but looking at all the myriads of mediocre and bad photos of churches here or on Flickr one can easily learn that it is not that easy ;–). IMHO it would be better to avoid such derogatory phrases in general, regardless whether we are talking about photos of churches, of landscapes, of animals, or whatever. Wouldn’t it be enough for your argument to say e.g. “we have alredy got many FPs of churches”? – Please do not misunderstand this as a personal attack; I am targetting the phrase, not you. IMHO the conversation on this pages is getting rougher from month to month, we have already put off some talented photographers, we should not strengthen that bad tendency. --Aristeas (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, it could have been worded better. Diliff's high-resolution HDR interiors are absolutely deserving of the FP star. What I mean is that a picture of a church of middling resolution with no distinctive features at thumbnail size does not meet the FP bar for me. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! Now this is an excellent, clear and distinct formulation and a very reasonable criterion, of course. All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMHO this one has deserved a little bit more love ;–). Yes, the “wow” is a very subjective factor, and for me this image definitely has got “wow”. A very picturesque church, definitely with some historic importance, built in an interesting style combining undressed stone, brick stone and wood, seen from a advantageous point of view, surrounded by picturesque (again) vegetation. The composition reminds me of some Dutch veduta painters from the 17th century. Because of this I would definitely not crop the image – the current framing is very well-balanced, we need to see the stone wall before the church until its end at the right and also that glimpse of the golden cornfield. There is only one disruptive element, namely the cut-off twigs on the right edge (marked with an image note). But cropping the whole image at the right to remove them would IMHO damage the composition (see above), so I would clone these twigs out – I see no ethical problem here, a mere gust of wind would be enough to move these twigs out of the frame, so it is also OK to clone them out. --Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Info Recropped! —kallerna (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Beautiful motif. I would prefer it if the sky were a little more interesting - the featureless blue doesn't provide the eye with anything to look at except the church itself. Cmao20 (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice church photo, but no wow, plus the quality is not really good; plus the tower is tilted. --A.Savin 20:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A. Savin and others. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In accordance with Aristeas' factually convincing argumentation. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Järva-Jaani keskus 120 meetri kõrgusel loodest vaadatuna. 2021. aasta juuli.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2021 at 06:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Settlements#Estonia
Info created by Sillerkiil - uploaded by Sillerkiil - nominated by Sillerkiil -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sillerkiil (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice to look at but not incredibly special, and the masts lean way to the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An unexceptional random landscape with an inconvenient cloud (?) shadow at lower right. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan, interesting view but IMO not outstanding enough for FP and a few technical flaws Cmao20 (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:PIA21977 - Falling Away from Jupiter (panorama).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2021 at 12:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Jupiter
Info created by NASA (changed by Realmaxxver by rotating the image by 90°) - uploaded and nominated by Realmaxxver -- Realmaxxver (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Realmaxxver (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The border between the planet and the background has jagged edges, especially on the right. Nor is the resolution particularly impressive.--Peulle (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, also I find the panoramic composition rather an odd choice. Jupiter is a fascinating planet but there are better spacecraft photos of it than this Cmao20 (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the other one currently in nomination, the one I'll call the Gigantic Ochre Marble, better. Daniel Case (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]