Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2022

File:2022-07-23 Motorsport, IDM, 87. Internationales Schleizer Dreieckrennen 1DX 2476 by Stepro.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2022 at 14:14:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Motorsports
Info international IDM sidecar race Schleiz 2022, Wout Vermeule with Jarno Bouius (NED); created, uploaded and nominated by Stepro
Support -- Stepro (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good! --Granada (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original and good executed sport action shot Poco a poco (talk) 08:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty exceptional! --SHB2000 (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm impressed, too! Are the white spots rain? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was some light rain at this time. Stepro (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nucleolaria nucleus 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2022 at 18:00:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Cypraeidae
Info No, this Cowry does not suffer from monkeypox ; created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe it's time to move your images directly to featured without doing a FPC. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you even allowed to do that? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has a technique that generates perfect images of shells, there is no way they can go wrong --Wilfredor (talk) 03:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pez cocodrilo (Papilloculiceps longiceps), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-27, DD 71.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2022 at 18:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Platycephalidae_(Flatheads)
Info Tentacled flathead, commonly known as crocodilefish (Papilloculiceps longiceps), Ras Muhammad National Park, Red Sea, Egypt. This species can be found in the western Indian Ocean, including the Red Sea and the Mediterranean, having invaded as a Lessepsian migrant through the Suez Canal. The tentacled flathead is a well camouflaged, ambush predator of fish and crustaceans and the maximum published total length for this species is 70 centimetres (28 in), although 50 centimetres (20 in) is more typical. Note: we have no FPs of the genus Papilloculiceps. I didn't know about this species and its spectacular similarity to the crocodiles until I saw it live. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question The depths on the lower right side have a strange colouring.--Ermell (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ermell: I uploaded a new version to address that, thank you! Poco a poco (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creo que tu y Llez encontraron un nicho que nadie aqui podra minimamente competir con ustedes. Sensacional calidad y especialmente siendo debajo del agua! --Wilfredor (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 22:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another cool underwater pic. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Wilfredor.--Ermell (talk) 07:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Impressive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pleasing and relaxing symphony of greys. Daniel Case (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 23:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seattle (WA, USA), 2601 Elliott Avenue -- 2022 -- 1777.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2022 at 17:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#United_States
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 17:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 17:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Is there a wider crop of this image? Right now crop seems a little tight for the subject of the image. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which image it could be but it isn't a crop. --XRay 💬 03:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The framing turns a boring building into an interesting minimalist composition. --Aristeas (talk) 07:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but no wow in my humble and subjective point of view. Ordinary architecture, average composition, nothing special -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile Morin. -- Karelj (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile Morin. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Basile. Yann (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A solid blue sky could be changed the minimalist composition, sorry. --Wilfredor (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the clouds are fine; they reinforce the diagonal line. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I'm not seeing anything exciting here Poco a poco (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could see what you thought you might have captured, but it didn't come through. Good eye, though. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very well done, but only a QI to me, rather than an inspiring composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Not exceptional enough. -- Pofka (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gnat ogre (02912).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2022 at 17:06:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family_:_Asilidae_(Robber_Flies)
Info Holcocephala fusca, a gnat ogre. A tiny species of predatory robber fly which perches on the tips of leaves/branches and hunts smaller insects (like gnats). The image isn't large, but remember the subject is only about 5mm long. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tail is very blurry and out of focus. One of the legs is also problematic, but the tail is the biggest problem. -- Pofka (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pofka, also part of leaf is blurry. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the picture despite the blurred areas -- Wolf im Wald 02:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per other opposers and the reso is rather low, sorry. -- Ivar (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rives Castle in Thonon-les-B 06.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2022 at 07:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tree on the right blocks the view. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a favourable composition to me. The building is mostly obstructed by trees, 70 percent of the frame area is entirely uninteresting foreground or foliage, the building itself is noisy and low on contrast, some parts oversharpened. --Kreuz schnabel 19:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles and Kreuz. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Room of Cesar de Vendome in the Castle of Chenonceau 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2022 at 07:45:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the cuted objects at right and left ruins the picture, sorry! --Ezarateesteban 14:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ezarate, and I don’t like the colours – either lighting is way too harsh, or contrast / saturation overdone. The purple thing on the right looks somehow unreal :) --Kreuz schnabel 19:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ezarate and Kreuz. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pied hoverfly (Scaeva pyrastri) on chicory (Cichorium intybus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2022 at 21:30:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Syrphidae (Hoverflies)
Info Focus stack of 8 images. No FPs of this genus of hoverfly. One FP of chicory flower. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very crisp and clear. Nice work Charles! --SHB2000 (talk) 09:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SHB. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. Per Wikipedia: "Scaeva pyrastri can reach a length of 11–15 millimetres". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Syrphidae (Hoverflies)

File:Fiestas de San Juan Bautista (Nueva Esparta, Venezuela) 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2022 at 10:56:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by WiloJedi - uploaded by WiloJedi - nominated by WiloJedi -- WiloJedi (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- WiloJedi (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think that this is a really favorable capture, sorry. --A.Savin 11:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. I agree with A.Savin. Also no wow factor and half people in background are distracting. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. Sadly no wow. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Poor background, washed-out colours, overexposed look with featureless white areas, not an interesting composition. As a rule, avoid to shoot people from above, except you want them to look smallish. There’s a reason photographers have knees :) --Kreuz schnabel 15:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is not interesting that they are not looking at the camera or that they're looking at a cell phone, and aside from the distracting background, the basket is also distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. No wow and one of the women is unpleasantly photographed with an open mouth. Plus the top-bottom crop balance is quite bad. This certainly is not the finest possible photo. -- Pofka (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --Isiwal (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)--Isiwal (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2022 (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: Seven opposes and no supports beside nominator in four days

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) 06:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shopping Cidade São Paulo.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2022 at 18:33:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Sitting_people
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see why you would want to intrude on a bunch of people having a meal! Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Not absolutely ridiculous Comment that prompted this response deleted, thanks Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question What are the rules about privacy in this kind of situation in Brazil? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info see Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Brazil: apparently, taking this picture already would have required consent from everyone depicted in it per Brazilian law. El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend putting this image On hold until we figure out the rules about privacy for these kinds of images, per above. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked permission from the mall administration before taking these photos. I wonder why nobody did not make any similar comments in this other FPC --Wilfredor (talk) 02:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at it, Wilfredo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was a question with no intention of scolding or anything, to others who did vote positively there but criticize here. :) --Wilfredor (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, and that's a good point. I guess permission from the mall administration was sufficient under Brazilian law, yes? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have to distinguish between the personality right (that is, if you take a picture and there are identifiable people on it, you may need consent by those people) and the domiciliary right (that is, for taking pictures in a private property or even a state museum you may need the approval by its owner/administration). For the former, it doesn't matter where exactly the picture was taken; for the latter, it usually doesn't matter if there are any people depicted. I guess the "permission from the mall administration" is merely about the latter. Regards --A.Savin 19:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In any case, I don't think the level of quality is sufficient for FP. There's CA, grain and some blur; the needed level of sharpness is not there.--Peulle (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments, I think that a FF camera could make the difference in this situation. --Wilfredor (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coral (Annella mollis), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-28, DD 108.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2022 at 10:40:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Class_:_Anthozoa
Info Coral (Annella mollis), Ras Muhammad National Park, Red Sea, Egypt. This species of soft coral live in areas in the Indo-West Pacific, including the Red Sea, around 12 to 18 meters deep, in lower reef slopes, on rocks and sand substrates. It's a very large gorgonian, which can measure up to 2 meters in wingspan, in the shape of a more or less regular fan. It deploys its lace of ramification in the same plane, perpendicular to the current, a plane which can however undergo curvatures during the life of the animal, and sometimes be doubled by independent branches. The main branches are cylindrical and stocky, and the secondary branches anastomose easily, from it emerge small retractile polyps. This animal feeds on plankton, caught in the current thanks to the many polyps that punctuate its arms. Like all gorgonians, Annella mollis forms female and male colonies, which on hormonal signal dispersed in the water will eject their gametes at the same time into the current, where fertilization and the planktonic phase of the egg will take place, then the larva. It is a slow growing species, and can probably live for more than a century. Note: we have no FPs of the family Alcyonacea and only this one of the order Alcyonacea. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support fine!--Isiwal (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 12:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can we do a little work on the halo around the coral, though? Daniel Case (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Case: Yes, I can do that but I'll need your help. I cannot see anything, could you add a note? Poco a poco (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:European praying mantis (Mantis religiosa) green female Dobruja.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2022 at 18:40:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Mantidae (Mantids)
Info The occupant of the tee-shirt where she alighted moved around and bent over to facilitate a clear shot. One current FP. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fabric as a background for an insect? It's not natural -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pure cotton actually! I agree it is not perfect, but it is in nature, not posed/studio and not captive. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice pose! --SHB2000 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This can't be an FP with such a blurry red canvas.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it? It's not the subject. How come you like the wasp on the blurry flower, but not the mantid on the blurry tee-shirt. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: For me, the partially out-of-focus red cloth can make or break the picture. it is part of the photo. You could have waited for the grasshopper to sit on a natural subject.-- Famberhorst (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I couldn't. The natural 'subject' for a mantis is to be hidden among grass. If the mantis is 100% visible in an image like this, it has nearly always been placed by hand. I was lucky that she landed on a compliant tee-shirt. I cannot complain of course if you oppose on the basis of a the man-made support. I've done that in the past. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per SHB. —Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tee-shirt is too disturbing in my opinion --Clément Bardot (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tee-shirt might be a bit disturbing, but this photo is certainly better than the other FP of this. I like the colors composition. -- Pofka (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family : Mantidae (Mantids)

File:Parc national de la Jacques-Cartier, Quebec, Canada.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 01:52:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Québec
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image could do with a little additional sharpening. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice mood and composition. However some of the foliage of the trees (for an example, please see the image note) looks IMHO strange and unnatural when viewed in full size – I guess it has been oversharpened or something else. Could you please have a look? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supplement: The first upload (without additional sharpening) is better in that respect. It already contains some areas in which IMHO the foliage looks a bit strange, namely the parts where the foliage is shining and glittering – in these parts the foliage is much sharper than in the other parts (have you applied some selective sharpening or so which may have over-sharpened exactly the shining/glittering parts?). But the new upload with the additional sharpening has increased the effect, now the shining parts look really unnatural to me. Difficult … --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question, it was not something done on purpose, I think it is the result of the artificial sharpening filter, that's why I prefer not to apply that filter (or any other). I have decided to revert those modifications but if anyone thinks they can apply it and it works better, they are welcome to modify the image. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you. IMHO it looks much more natural again. I really like the view. At thumbnail size, it seems a bit dark, but when viewing it in full size I think the brightness is appropriate. There are some softer areas, but I don’t think that they are that important, given the resolution. If you want to sharpen this photo (again) it could be a good idea to use a mask and to sharpen (carefully) only the slightly soft areas, without touching the areas which are already very sharp; this could avoid the artificial impression the intermediate version gave me. --Aristeas (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Aristeas thank you for your comments. I confess you that I am not very good using those retouching tools so I concentrate on making a photo as natural as possible and without those filters and I think those filters are destructive. I would have liked to take a sharper photo but the place where I took the photo was in constant movement and it was not a stable place so I was forced to use a faster shutter speed. This weekend I will be climbing that mountain that you see at the end (Le loups or The wolves), I hope to get good views from there. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you see I already support the photo as it is. My comment about using a mask for sharpening is just for the case that other users here request more sharpening (again). For me your photo is beautiful as it is. Good look with climbing that mountain – I hope you can enjoy (and capture ;–) a good view. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support or should I say pour? (forget about automatic translation) --SHB2000 (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice view, but not exceptional enough for me; some lower parts of the picture are blurred. --A.Savin 11:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First, I decided to give it a few days, but I have to say I cannot find this image really that interesting at all. So, no wow, somehow sad and dull. While the scenery is certainly nice, the light is less so, and I don’t like that tree on the right shore to cover the left bank woods (I would have taken it a bit more from the left). There’s a strange issue in the sky between the rightmost trees (grey spot) – is the reddish sky colour natural, or has it been tinted in postprocessing? --Kreuz schnabel 15:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose On one level I like it because the scene in question looks so much like scenes closer to home for me in the Catskills. This could easily be Esopus Creek not far above Ashokan Reservoir.
But on the other hand there's the color and the fact that this scene does not stand out from other scenes of stream flow through mountainous terrain. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question What category are you comparing it to? I find the photo and its composition beautiful, though, so I'm inclined to support if additional appropriate categories are added. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added two aditional categories, however, I don't have much creativity at the moment, if you can think of any cat, add it too please --Wilfredor (talk) 15:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question How about sunsets? Is the time stamp in UTC? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Nice but not exceptional -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goéland argenté (Larus argentatus) - tête (5).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2022 at 07:47:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Family_:_Laridae_(Gulls,_terns_and_skimmers)
Info created by Gzen92 - uploaded by Gzen92 - nominated by Gzen92 -- Gzen92 (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gzen92 (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Much of the image is in the shadows --Wilfredor (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Always a good idea to compare your image with an existing FP. This one is not as appealing. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question How are you able to get FP search to work in this category? It's not working for me today, as usual. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, works fine for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Thanks for ramrques. Gzen92 (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hochzeitsturm Darmstadt 2022.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 21:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#Germany
Info 300 megapixel stitching of Hochzeitsturm, part of UNESCO World Heritage Site Mathildenhöhe at Darmstadt, Germany. Please notice that the picture maybe cannot be displayed regularly in the browser due to the high resolution. However, the image can be downloaded or viewed in the ZoomViewer. There is also a reduced version with only 100 megapixels, which can be viewed in the browser as usual. All by me. -- Wolf im Wald 21:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:47, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Apart from the blurred amd messy immediate foreground, looks very high quality. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought about cutting away the foreground, but I think it looks better with the foreground. I don't like the picture having no foreground. The blur is a result of the focal length of 135mm. I don't think that's a problem because there's nothing exciting to see in front anyway and it gives the picture some depth. -- Wolf im Wald 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support though I do think f/8 would have been a better choice. For ultra-high-resolution images, I don't expect everything to be in perfect focus, but everything should be sharp at a moderate resolution like 6 MP. The sharpness of the foreground is passable, but there's just a little bit more fuzziness than I'd like. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I used f/5.6 because the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Milvus performs with more sharpness at this setting (compared to f/8). I always try to achieve the best possible technical result and in this case it was more important to me that the sundial in the right center of the picture is very sharp. The uninteresting and ugly foreground was not important to me, I even think it's good that it loses importance due to the blurring. -- Wolf im Wald 16:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent quality and resolution -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The technology used gives us excellent sharpness and resolution, but shouldn't have been bought for the price of a blurred foreground. The unsharpness doesn't really helps for depth here in my eyes. Yes, without foregeund is not a better solution. f/5.6 doesn't seem to be the right choice for 135 mm and this subject either. In broad daylight, a high f-number shouldn't have been a problem. If the goal is a lower resolution, the photographer could have made it easier for himself instead of composing 28 individual images. By the way: The photographer can't do anything about the scaffolding, but it wasn't the ideal time for an excellent image of this tower. --Milseburg (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Personally I am fine with the foreground etc. being out of focus – the subject is the tower, period. (“Photography consists of sharpness and unsharpness”, my father used to tell me; one can read more about this idea e.g. in Feininger’s photography textbooks.) And I understand the choice of f/5.6; modern lenses, combined with modern high-resolution sensors, often excel in sharpness already at f/4 and show diffraction starting already at f/8, even more at f/11. So if the photographer wanted to make the most of the tower, he has done well. It’s just a pity about all the ugly stuff (scaffolding etc.) around which really degrades the overall impression, sorry; while all the foreground and background can very well be out of focus, they are still parts of the composition and therefore influence the overall impression. --Aristeas (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice quality, but the fences in the foreground are really hugly. I would support with a crop. Yann (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support –SHB2000 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fences in the bottom are really problematic, but overall I think this is FP material. -- Pofka (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. -- Karelj (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The amount of detail is great, but the overall composition/rest of the scene doesn't work for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Physical map of Ancient Greece-ru1.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 18:27:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Europe
Info created by Пётр Тарасьев - uploaded by Пётр Тарасьев - nominated by Пётр Тарасьев -- Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference with the map above. Objection about the langage stands. No link to category above. Yann (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a philhellene I am always interested in good maps of Hellas. Indeed this seems to be a fine map, not the most detailed I have ever seen, but certainly good and very useful – bravo! However I have to confess that I expect such a map to use either (1) ancient Greek captions (original names and spelling) or (2) Latin captions (as traditional in history books) or (3) English captions (just because English is the lingua franca of our epoch) or (4) multilingual captions in a SVG. I have the highest respect for the rich Russian language, but I don’t see it as appropriate for a map of Greece – just as I would not welcome French, German, … captions for such a map. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aristeas Thank you very much)))) The source file itself is in svg format. I will work further on the map (change fonts for the wiki engine and reduce the file size - I don't know how yet). The map itself was conceived so that amateurs could translate it into their own language. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Пётр Тарасьев: I understand. Well, in theory I could even try to help with the translation; e.g. I could try to make a version with the names in the original ancient Greek. I think it would be most easy if you could manage to get a working SVG version uploaded; then we could try to make it a mulitlingual SVG file. — But at the moment, I have to confess that I have almost no free time (I am moving to another home in another city). Maybe you could contact = remind me later, e.g. in October, then we could try to figure out how I can help in the best way. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aristeas I wrote you down, I will then rewrite the map into Latin and let's see what can be done from ancient Greek) (and I know what). Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Пётр Тарасьев: sorry for not answering earlier. I am sorry but I have almost no time at the moment. I will be back for constructive work and cooperation in the 2nd half of September or at the beginning of October. Best regards, --Aristeas (talk) 10:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file is also missing categories. Yann (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann Added categories Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, I'm thoroughly impressed. This must be by far the most professional-looking map I've seen here in years (!). Commons is a multi-lingual project, so there's nothing wrong with it being in Russian per se. Sure, I'd personally prefer it to be in English, but as far as I can see, all the labels have been placed very carefully. That's not something you quickly switch to another language on a lazy afternoon. The only thing I don't particularly like is the color scale: It is relatively low-contrast over-all, but then the colors for 800-1000 and 1000-1200m really pop out. I'd like a bit more balance there. Oh, and maybe putting the title on top of the map would make the whole layout feel a bit more balanced, right now there is a lot white space between the map and the legend. --El Grafo (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and since this doesn't seem to be an equidistant map projection, the scale bar in km doesn't make much sense to me. For longitude, 1° = 111.3 km is only true at the equator, at 40° latitude it's more like 1° = 85km. --El Grafo (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @El Grafo I didn’t delve into it, I just accurately copied the grid.Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo Thank you very much)))) I'm struggling with this file and will soon make an svg file of this map while I'm having problems with vector graphics. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like a map of Greek history with Russian text. The map does not include all of Ancient Greece. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles' second statement. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as other map created and nominated by you. I think it should be in Greek or English. This could be a FP illustration in the Russian Wikipedia, but its usage will be limited in the English Wikipedia and it certainly will not be used in the Greek Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka what is FP illustration?Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 10:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Пётр Тарасьев: Various languages Wikipedias have the right to recognize images as FP only in their respective projects (e.g. Wikipedia:Featured pictures). I believe this is the case, unless you will create alternative maps with English/Greek texts. -- Pofka (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka That is, it was necessary to put this map directly into the Russian Wikipedia and not into the Wikimedia Commons? Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Пётр Тарасьев: My knowledge about FP recognition in language-based Wikipedia projects is quite limited. However, I have seen files in Commons which have templates saying that the file was recognized as FP in language-based Wikipedia projects (e.g. this image which is a FP in the Persian Wikipedia and is currently nominated for FP in Commons). So probably you can nominate Commons files for recognition as FP in the Russian Wikipedia as well. Though, I'm unable to find link to the Russian Wikipedia in the left side tool bar "Other languages" HERE, so I'm not sure if the Russian Wikipedia have such a procedure at all. -- Pofka (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka Understood. Thanks for the answer. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka I looked and didn't find the Russian Wikipedia FP, all candidates from all languages are forwarded here. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Settlement map of the Greek tribes before the start of the Peloponnesian War-ru.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 18:26:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps#Maps of Europe
Info created by Пётр Тарасьев - uploaded by Пётр Тарасьев - nominated by Пётр Тарасьев -- Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why do we want a map of Greek tribes etc. with Russian text (if that's what the language is)? The map does not include all of Ancient Greece. Charlesjsharp (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp Initially, I planned to make a map in svg format, but there were problems with the file and I converted it to png. And what about the language? Or is it necessary to have an svg file to provide multi-language translation? Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp russian language Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, but objection about the langage is valid. Please add a category above, and fix the information template, it's a mess. Yann (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann I have corrected the description Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file is also missing categories. Yann (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the objection about the map being in Russian language could be valid. Maps are necessarily dependent on printed labels, and who says that the Latin alphabet must be used? Why not illustrate Greek history to someone who speaks (and reads) only Russian? Even though I don't speak this language and I can hardly read the words, I am still able to judge on harmonic labelling, the font used, etc. - and of course the other components of a map (colors, layout, legend...).

But you are right in objecting to the area depicted: If the map is to show the history of Ancient Greece, it must include all the territory that was "Greek" in the era. Till (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Till.niermann The source of this map says "GRIECHENLAND" in German. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Till.niermann File:Ancient Greece (Droysen).jpg Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see my comment on the other map. --Aristeas (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it should be in Greek or English. This could be a FP illustration in the Russian Wikipedia, but its usage will be limited in the English Wikipedia and it certainly will not be used in the Greek Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 08:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pofka I figured out the errors in the svg file and fix them. I was in a hurry to post this map because there is a possibility of blocking wikipedia in Russia. I will make an svg file in Russian, and in Latin I agreed with one person (I will do most of the titles in Latin). As for the ancient Greek: I also have resources with place names in this language and together with it we will make an ancient Greek version. Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka This map will be the same as this Пётр Тарасьев (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Short-billed dowitcher in JBWR (40844).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2022 at 17:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Limnodromus
Info Short-billed dowitcher. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool reflections on the water too. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 02:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Westhafen Frankfurt.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2022 at 22:46:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Germany
Info All by me, Der Wolf im Wald. -- Wolf im Wald 22:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 22:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would a bottom crop to remove the half boat improve the composition? Half person would need to be cloned out. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your suggestion Charles! I'm not entirely happy with the boat either. But I really like the reflections on the water and I wouldn't like them to be cropped so much. So I believe it looks better without cropping, but I think it's a matter of taste. -- Wolf im Wald 17:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ermell (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop is good as is, and the people may not easily be cloned out. --A.Savin 11:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find the composition any special and I would have cropped the image differently. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I do think the crop would help. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bultfonteinite - Linxi, Chifeng City, Inner Mongolia, China.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2022 at 06:01:06 (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) 06:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 06:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 02:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:White-browed Babbler 0A2A5610.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2022 at 06:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Pomatostomidae_(Australo-Papuan_babblers)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 12:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is it that the bird has in its beak that is the same color as the background? --Wilfredor (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note Added --Wilfredor (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing there except a tiny bit of food or something. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have cropped more of the post and greeen blob away. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Charles, wire is especially mildly distracting. Would like to see an alt of this with cropped post. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Charles -- Wolf im Wald 02:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and colors of the capture, the sharpness is also very good. My wow antenna receives a support signal for it :) -- Radomianin (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice as is, not needed crop IMO -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you want to crop it, please nominate the cropped version as alternative version – I prefer this (uncropped) version. --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Charles (a shame because making this picture better would be easy) but great detail otherwise Poco a poco (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not many bird pics with this background color. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Pomatostomidae_(Australo-Papuan_babblers)

File:Passerelle en partie détruite sur le torrent du Sirac (Parc des Ecrins, Hautes Alpes, France) 20220820 165338.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2022 at 10:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/France
Info Broken footbridge in the Parc national des Écrins (Hautes-Alpes, France) created by Pline - nominated by Pline -- Pline (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The clouds hide the mountain. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture, realistic representation without pushing the clouds away with a pole --Stepro (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good sharpness for F1,8. Cell phones are getting better and better.--Ermell (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the clouds cover the mountains, emphasising the park's altitude. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I disagree with Charles, I think the clouds add a sense of depth to the image. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ermell and Urban. Daniel Case (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have been in Parc national des Ecrins (Hautes-Alpes, France). So a feast of recognition. I don't see a problem with the clouds.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France#Hautes-Alpes

File:Tartu asv2022-04 img26 Vanemuine small building.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2022 at 08:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Estonia
Info The "small building" of Vanemuine Theatre, Tartu. All by me --A.Savin 08:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 08:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ezarateesteban 14:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! The building is perfectly lit and the near perfect symmetry makes it stand out. --Granada (talk) 08:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alexander-93 (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maanshen (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Granada. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The top crop is a bit thigh for my taste, otherwise no room for improvement Poco a poco (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice light -- Wolf im Wald 02:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lake Eber Aerial shot.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2022 at 17:10:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Turkey
Info created and uploaded by OzcelikMurat - nominated by IamMM (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose very nice, but looks like heavily downsampled. 3,8 MP for a landscape FP is imo not good enough nowadays. -- Ivar (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ivar. Also, unappealing algae bloom. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination IamMM (talk) 17:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pont Rouelle, Tour Eiffel & Sacré-Cœur, Paris 2022.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2022 at 15:37:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#France
Info created by Pierre Blaché - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the colors and atmosphere, but: 1) Part of the bridge is missing; 2) Eiffel is randomly cropped; 3) Sacré-Cœur is very small to be a significant subject of the photo, so the bridge must be perfect. Maybe it should have been a wider perspective of the bridge. -- Pofka (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pofka, we have too many FPs of the Eiffel for this one to pop out. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree. It's a nice photo and an interesting angle, but it's not extraordinary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pofka.--Peulle (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pofka, UV32 and IK. I simply don't see the wow. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2022 (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 six opposes and no support from anyone except the nominator in five days, it is very unlikely to succeed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2022 (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:Great egret preening in a tree (84368).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2022 at 02:55:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ardea
Info I uploaded a few shots of this great egret. The others are more typical, but I couldn't resist this silly right-angle preening. Reminded me of the Headless Horseman a bit... all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Еxcellent quality and well captured moment. Wow! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool shot! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per George. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus_:_Ardea

File:Western wood pewee perched near the Sacramento River-5174.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2022 at 07:41:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Tyrannidae (Tyrant Flycatchers)
Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The bird appears to be oversharpened, plus heavy noise reduction has left the bird's tail a solid black with virtually no feather textures. I will change my vote if it is fixed. --Wilfredor (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be quite small if cropped tighter. I don't think the long twig adds to the image. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no feather textures in the RAW file and I actually decided a while ago not to participate with my own images here anymore. Over the years I've literally removed thousands of birds from skies that people insisted were dust spots, spent hours straightening buildings that are in reality crooked because they're old, and I've done all kinds of other weird things that I would not ever do to my photos under different conditions. I'm tired of that. With that being said, I really appreciate Tomer T's kindness to nominate other people's images. I admire his ability to consistently pick great photos. Thanks, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comment Frank, and yes!! I understand your frustration and it was something that happened to me at the beginning, however, now I see negative comments as a way to improve, if I see something out of logic I ask for more details about the comment. This is not a competition for more Featured Images, but a continuous improvement section. Today I am a good photographer thanks largely to this section. When I nominate a photograph, I am not looking for it to be highlighted, but I am looking for negative votes with sustained comments that invite me to reflect and improve. If I see that a comment still doesn't make sense after asking for more details, I usually say thanks but it doesn't affect me. To improve as photographers it is necessary to kill the ego that prevents us from moving forward and ignore (if necessary) the irrelevant and take the good from the evaluations in this section. I sincerely hope to see more of your work here. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per Wilfredor, will change to support if there's an alt version with a crop. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing wrong with the twig, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the contrast between the cute small bird and the long twig adds a funny note to the photo. --Aristeas (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- IamMM (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Tyrannidae (Tyrant Flycatchers)

File:Bourse de commerce, stairs.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2022 at 08:13:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Stairs
Info created by Till.niermann - uploaded by Till.niermann - nominated by Till.niermann -- Till (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Till (talk) 08:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It certainly look nice, however cropped staircase railing makes the composition unfinished for me. -- Pofka (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I respectfully disagree with Pofka, I think a wider cropped staircase may make the image too "busy". Also, the point of main interest is in the center. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Urban Versis 32: I just don't think that this picture is on the same level as other FP-class pictures of staircases: 1, 2, 3, 4. The first example has a slightly cropped staircase railing, but has an excellently balanced crop in the center. The third and fourth examples also has slightly cropped staircase railings, but their compositions are very well balanced. In comparison, this picture has quite randomly looking crop in both sides. You might be right that that the wider crop may make this image even worse, but then it would be the same argument: the composition is not outstanding to be a FP. We have a lot of photos of various staircases in Commons, but only a few pictures of them are FP-class (see: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Stairs and Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors). -- Pofka (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do make a good point, and I understand your argument, however just by personal preference I am keeping my support for this image. (See George's comment too). Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Pofka -- Wolf im Wald 16:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think Pofka is right, though I'd have to see the alternative to judge it. This composition doesn't really work for me, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A nice image that has a basic idea. And if architecture is a frozen music, then this image also has its own rhythm. Excellent composition IMO -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special here to me. Good QI, but not FP. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. -- Karelj (talk) 14:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the light... — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a sci-fi movie set. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I am not happy about the top crop, but overall it’s fascinating. --Aristeas (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is definitely FP potential here, but I'm not convinced by the crop, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:White pelicans (Pelecanus onocrotalus) Danube delta.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2022 at 10:00:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus : Pelecanus
Info Three zoo FPs of individual birds and one attractive artistic group FP in the wild. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is the image tilt? and what's happened with the top of the image (is blurred), and why this small size?. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt corrected, thanks. Depth of field with 500mm lens won't get everything in focus even at F10. Size is from crop from camera's 5472 x 3648 pixels to isolate the pelicans. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explain. --Wilfredor (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice rhythm Poco a poco (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco a poco. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 05:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco. --Aristeas (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dinkum (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appealing light -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maanshen (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus : Pelecanus

File:Gangchil bus.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2022 at 19:34:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info created by Wasiul Bahar - uploaded by Wasiul Bahar - nominated by Wasiul Bahar -- Wasiul Bahar (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2022 (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: Overexposed chromatic aberration, noise, jpg artifacs, perspective distortion, satured - Wilfredor (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2022 (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:Batería de Castillitos, Cartagena, España, 2022-07-16, DD 79-81 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2022 at 19:05:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Spain
Info Coastal artillery Castillitos, Cartagena, Spain. It was built together with the coastal artillery Cenizas in order to protect the entrance to the Bay of Cartagena. The construction took place between 1933 and 1936 following a project from 1926 during the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera. The canons were delivered by the British company Vickers-Armstrong (model 38.1cm/45 of 15 inches). This artillery is capable of shooting a projectile of one tonne to a distance of 35 kilometres (22 mi). It's a Spanish National Heritage Monument since 1985. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very minor point: the company's name was Vickers-Armstrong. Wikipedia has it wrong. The gun is 38.1cm i.e. 15 inches. ~~(p.s. did you notice the 'dancer' on the turret!)~~Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp: Fixed (both issues) Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! I also noticed a leafy "arch" over one of the two smaller roads. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric. --Aristeas (talk) 05:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support O'h I know this place - was there 1,5 year ago. Interesting angle and nice ambience. The towers forefront seem newer than much of the fort, like they were remade to look as they may have been perhaps? --Ximonic (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ximonic: It was really a pain in the back to get there and on top I was in a rush as the sun went down quickly... I checked older pictures and they all look similar to mine and I couldn't find either any articles about any renovation works. Poco a poco (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some ringing on the ridgeline, and distortion in the parking lot, but they're not what the photo is about. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Spain

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, St.-Jakobus-Kirche, Chor und Altar -- 2022 -- 4184-8.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2022 at 15:24:13 (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 💬 15:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 15:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! --Granada (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very "Diliff-like". --A.Savin 11:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per A.Savin Poco a poco (talk) 11:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The little details on each item in the composition make it stand out as a whole. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed --Wilfredor (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. -- Pofka (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly qualified support I think it could do with a little more contrast, but maybe that's just me. (And I love the haloes at the windows ... just right!) Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Etipoia Banna tribe kids.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2022 at 17:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
Info created and uploaded by WAVRIK, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! But maybe it would be even better with slightly less sky and more body of the smallest person (if that's possible)? Anyway, this is wow enough to be a FP. Pinging uploader @WAVRIK: for this one. -- Pofka (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please more nomiations like this --Wilfredor (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support An interesting insight on other cultures. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cropped boys bottom right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great picture, but some technical issues. (1) There’s a purple tone in the clouds, and considerable posterization (in the sky as well). (2) The edges of the heads against blue sky look oddly either unsharp or oversharpened. Best visible in the second from right (crown blurred, neck and chin oversharp). Can these issues be addressed? --Kreuz schnabel 13:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, they can, Kreuz – please do it. ;–) I would have done it but I have no free time at the moment. You are an experienced image editor, so please help us and fix the issues. Thank you very much, --Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Supplement: I understand that you meant the photographer to do these improvements. Of course I would prefer if the photographer would do these changes on the base of a raw image file. That would be the best solution. But with WLF photos most times such requests are useless; most photographers don’t respond, and often they have no raw image file. So all we can do is to try to improve the JPEG image, and at lease the purple tone, the posterization and some oversharpened edges can be improved on base of the JPEG file. --Aristeas (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixing blurred / oversharpened edges is tricky work and not done with a few clicks. I really don’t have time to do this. And it’s going to be featured anyway :) --Kreuz schnabel 07:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually thought they were some avant-garde statuary at first ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 15:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very impressive. Dinkum (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fan-bristled robber fly (Dysmachus trigonus) with bee prey Babadag.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2022 at 10:30:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Asilidae (Robber Flies)
Info Eight robber fly FPs of varying quality; the most recent from 2017. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest, I promoted it in QI but saw it just over the bar in terms of detail, I don't see this a FP Poco a poco (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree with Poco's point, anyway it is an interesting moment and I think the details are acceptable. The images of insects that we usually see here from Sven Damerow have influenced my impression of the 2020s desirable FP. Yes, it is true that what the photographer can do is more important than what the hardware/software does, but I have to admit that it has become increasingly difficult for me to support noms of insects that do not have high resolution. The species of bee should be added to the categories. -- IamMM (talk) 06:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all insect photo opportunities are the same. This is an insect protecting its kill and this was the third place it flew to. It would not allow a macro photo. This is taken with a 500mm lens, so some cropping is inevitable and the lens won't focus closer than about 1.1m. And this is a single shot, not a focus stack. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ryan Hodnett (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support the sharpening (or denoising) model creates some harsh edges, but I like the drama of the scene — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ever with low resolution and details, I like the moment. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 11:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Asilidae (Robber Flies)

File:Webb’s Jupiter Images Showcase Auroras, Hazes.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2022 at 08:47:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Jupiter
Info created by NASA/Image processing by Judy Schmidt - uploaded and nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since we are bound to have a lot of really nice photos to upload from Web, please keep in mind that those pictures have their very own license templates. Please use {{PD-Webb}} or {{ESA-Webb}}. --Cart (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Meets with my support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the license review template. There is no doubt that the image comes from NASA, and it is under a different license on FLickr. Yann (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Very cool. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks cool, but the level of resolution is underwhelming.--Peulle (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Aristeas (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support from a space buff... --SHB2000 (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's Jupiter's evil twin! Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Jupiter

File:20220816 European Championships Munich 2022 Hüberli Walkenhorst DSC 6653.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2022 at 13:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Other team sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Usually shots of blocking action in beach volleyball are quite boring. This has undergone a lot of work in Lightroom (but nothing else) and I like the result. -- Granada (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too chaotic for me. Defending player cannot be seen clearly. -- Karelj (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Karelj, I'm curious to hear how you'd have solved this had you been the photographer. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is claer and easy. I wouldn't nominate image for FP... -- Karelj (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the game of volleyball involves a net, it might not be as clear and easy for this type of shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Exciting and a good composition to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too chaotic composition for me as well. The defending player is covered by a net and the background with spectators creates even more chaos. There are ways to capture a block with a better composition. For example, when the defending player jumps over the net. Also by photographing from a higher perspective (rostrum/tower/drone), see here main photo and videos thumbnails. The net certainly creates extra difficulties, but I think it is not an excuse when we are discussing about a FP-class picture. -- Pofka (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't work for me. Too much net. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Granada and Ikan. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 00:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good dynamic composition, the posture of the players appears like a kind of inverted mirror image of each other. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This photo shows a blocking action at the net, therefore it is natural and necessary that the net is a central part of the photo. --Aristeas (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Aristeas. I mean, this happens a few dozen times at least in every volleyball match at this level. The subject is clearly the ball; for me the net is, well, net zero as far as that goes. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panoramic view of Jacques-Cartier National Park from the Wolves peak (Les Loups), Quebec, Canada.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2022 at 19:28:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The river and its tributary really add to the "Wow" factor of this image. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you do something about the blurry area marked by Wolf im Wald? Otherwise, my feeling is that this is a majestic panorama and deserves a feature on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done The blurry area was a mistake on the JPG build. This is a single image and not a union, I uploaded the RAW file on tiff format, however, if someone want the NEF file I could sent it too. Thanks for the note --Wilfredor (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is impressive for a single image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's because the camera raw (not the software, the Z7II it's self) has a hight EV and size. It's difficult to me make the habitual panorama with several images because the image size is too big (1GB jpg only for 6 images) also my favorite software to join images is expensive (PTGui). I'm looking forward to make a similar panorama using a 105mm z 2.8 that could give a sharpen image. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- IamMM (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A grand view, congrats. --Aristeas (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 02:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A view that reminds me of the Catskills as well, complete with the boreal forest up front (it looks like red spruce in there with the balsam fir ... is it?) but this time FP-worthy. Is this view from an observation tower (Also, the coords don't seem to match the location ... they put you on a road over the river, not this mountaintop). Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel, I think CatsKills is prettier (a personal opinion), however, it would be a matter of using a zoom lens to take a better picture of the valley. It is a splendid but inhospitable place, very far from everything, despite this, it only took me 3 hours to reach the top from the base. I would like to answer your question. I would not know how to identify the trees (I will look for bibliography on this), all my knowledge about botany and fauna is mainly from the Caribbean (where I am from). I have added the most exact GPS coordinates. Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 00:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Northern waterthrush in Central Park (14717).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2022 at 01:38:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Parulidae_(New_World_Warblers)
Info Northern waterthrush (Parkesia noveboracensis), a small warbler (one of three terrestrial wood-warblers). They typically walk along shaded/secluded edges of fresh water, bobbing up and down, foraging. This one is bobbing on a rock, which probably wasn't productive. I have a bunch of poorly lit photos of these guys, and was happy this one stepped out into the light. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Sharpness could be better -- Wolf im Wald 04:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A nice shot and it would be the first FP of this genus, if I'm not wrong, on the other side detail is pretty low Poco a poco (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting environment -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Screw.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2022 at 07:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Wasiul Bahar - uploaded by Wasiul Bahar - nominated by Wasiul Bahar -- Wasiul Bahar (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I suspect this device could not capture the higher quality needed for FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not an unbelievably fantastic photo, which is what we'd need to feature a photo of a screw. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2022 (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: poor quality, low resolution --Kreuz schnabel 09:24, 6 September 2022 (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.

Comment I'm surprised that the file "Screw.jpg" wasn't already taken! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are more surprising things to find: Tree.jpg is a redirect to a more specifically named image of a tree (as if it was the only one) --Kreuz schnabel 06:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  File was uploaded as Tree.jpg in 2012 and moved to Solitary tree near lake.jpg 10 years later. Deleting the redirect now would be quite foolish El Grafo (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goldglänzender Rosenkäfer (Cetonia aurata)-20080817-RM-165332.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2022 at 08:38:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Scarabaeidae (Scarab Beetles)
Info created & uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's too hidden away for me. Doesn't compare favourably with photographer's current work. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I guess it was very good 14 years ago... -- Ivar (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still like the photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. I like the photo too and yet think it’s not one of our very very best. --Kreuz schnabel 19:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom.--Ermell (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm a little surprised by the degree of opposition. The composition is beautiful, the beetle is clearly quite small, and I think that in context, this level of detail is good enough for a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Though legs are slightly out of focus, I think this is still a very good image, per Ikan. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question How a 35mm and a Old camera can reproduce this macro image? --Wilfredor (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The 35mm FT is a very good macro lens. I post-processed the image with Topaz, the original is quite noisy compared to what we are used to today.--Ermell (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Was used some extension pipe? on any case, the result is amazing --Wilfredor (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Info No. The beetle is relatively big.--Ermell (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the contrast between the soft and delicate flower and the hard, reflective insect. Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family : Scarabaeidae (Scarab Beetles)

File:Fish farming on Øksfjorden in Loppa, Troms og Finnmark, Norway, 2022 August.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2022 at 17:36:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Industry#Norway
Info created and uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by IamMM (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting. I think it deserves a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 11:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! Very mystique. -- Pofka (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great mood Poco a poco (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 15:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Outstandig scene and yery good sharpness. But the resolution is rather low. --Milseburg (talk) 18:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above. -- Ivar (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco a Poco. --Aristeas (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely Arctic evening ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors, clouds, interesting content and good management of the light -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 05:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another photo that proves why Norge is one of Europe's most beautiful countries ;-) --SHB2000 (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Marienkapelle Visbeck, Altar -- 2022 -- 4196-200.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2022 at 15:25:38 (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 💬 15:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 15:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The arch bothers me. Will change to support if there is a picture of just the internal part of the room. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not as magnificent as the other church, but for me an impressive composition which makes most of the chapel thanks to the framing with the arch. --Aristeas (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not extraordinary to be a FP among millions of Commons pictures. -- Pofka (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Pofka. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Even though I think that a good picture of a simple chapel can be a featured picture, I withdraw the nomination. I really like the composition with the arch as a frame. Thanks for all the reviews! --XRay 💬 13:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't sure whether this was an FP, but I agree with you that this composition could have been by rights an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferronor Museum Baquedano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2022 at 08:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by David Gubler - uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 08:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Something different from David, old Ferronor steam locomotives in a roundhouse in Chile. It's the composition that appeals to me. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 08:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first, it looked like any ordinary scene until my eyes hit those rusted historic trains. Great contrast! --SHB2000 (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop at the left and the crop of the engine at right don't seem right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support So cool! Does anyone know when these trains may have been used? Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The locomotive on the right is unfortunately cut off. The other locomotives are partly too dark for me.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the photographer's intent was to show only the front of the three locomotives, two (almost) face-on and the third in profile. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The photo was taken in 2012 with a Canon 50D, with that sensor there isn't much detail in the shadows left to save unfortunately. Roundhouses can be a bit tricky in terms of composition because you'd often need extreme wide angle which comes with its own issues, so I tried something a bit different. I have no strong feelings about the result. --Kabelleger (talk) 07:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose The scene is really, really nice but the light is way too harsh, causing too many dark black areas not only on the entrances but also on the locomotives themselves. The one cut off on the right nails it, making the framing look arbitrary, there’s no clear central spot in this composition. (I could think of a different composition, taken more from the left, with the center of the radial rails in the foreground.) Then, it’s rather soft for just 12 megapixels on a still object. It is certainly nice but I don’t think it’s one of the very best we have. --Kreuz schnabel 07:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand the challenge, but nonetheless have to agree with Kreuzschnabel. The cropped locomotive doesn't help either. --A.Savin 11:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice gritty texture, but that's not enough here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Volkswagen T1 Doka Classic-Gala 2021 1X7A0030.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2022 at 09:19:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles
Info Volkswagen T1 Doka at Classic-Gala in the gardens of Schwetzingen Palace in September 2021, all by me - nominated by Alexander-93 -- Alexander-93 (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexander-93 (talk) 09:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's a nice image and I like its composition, but I don't see how this image is so remarkable. Nevertheless, I support this because I do like that Volkswagen. --SHB2000 (talk) 09:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More or less normal shot (no wow), additionally very strong contrast due to harsh sunlight, also little space between the water jet and the edge of the image --Wilfredor (talk) 09:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with both SHB and Wilfredor. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The car doesn't really go well with the fountain. I think a composition with just the car alone has FP potential. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The photo is not a whole for me because of the different components.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, esp per Wilfredor. I don’t like the harsh light either. For a pic of the car itself, there’s just too much in the frame. The car is really nice but I don’t think this is an outstandingly fine shot of it. --Kreuz schnabel 06:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. -- Pofka (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Child's Faith to Santo Niño.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2022 at 18:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Children
Info created and uploaded by Michol Sanchez, nominated by Yann (talk)
Support We don't have so many FPs of children, and this one is worth the star. -- Yann (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great idea, but the child's face isn't sharp, so how can we consider this a great photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May be not very sharp, but the composition makes it for me. Yann (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sharp and I don't like the tilt. I assume the personality rights have been sorted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose per Charles – mainly for focus, then there’s some overexposure on the pink sweater, and it’s tilted (see ground). Pity, it’s a really nice image. Rule of thirds might have worked better than centered composition here but that’s a matter of taste. --Kreuz schnabel 05:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support From the first time I saw this picture on QIC just loved it. The technical problems are obvious, but this is not an easy shot. The paradox of the military uniform and boots with the doll, the pink sweater and the girl's facial expression make this image special for me. If there were no technical shortcomings, it would be a suitable candidate for POTY. -- IamMM (talk) 06:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose I really want to love it, but the tilt is so glaringly obvious. --El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice thumbnail, but the focus is on the sleeve. The face is blurry. Also per El Grafo -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excellent composition, without prejudice to questions about the slant, but since her face isn't sharp even at 30%, I don't see how this could be one of the greatest photos on the site. It's memorable, though; I'll give it that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green Cargo Mb Björnsjö.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2022 at 19:08:54 (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) 19:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support –- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 22:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting view -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pez cofre jorobado (Tetrosomus gibbosus), parque nacional Ras Muhammad, Egipto, 2022-03-27, DD 146.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2022 at 21:05:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish#Family_:_Ostraciidae
Info Camel cowfish (Tetrosomus gibbosus), Ras Muhammad National Park, Red Sea, Egypt. The common name is due to the hump on its dorsal keel and is a species of boxfish native to the Indo-West Pacific (including the Red Sea), but it has been established in the Mediterranean Sea via Lessepsian migration. It is mainly found at depths of 37–110 m (121–361 ft) on slopes or over muddy bottoms, but can sometimes be seen near shallow seagrass beds. It's normally around 20 cm (7.9 in) long when it is fully grown, but can reach up to 30 cm (11.8 in) in length. Like other boxfish species, its flesh is poisonous. It feeds on a wide variety of invertebrates and algae. Note: We have no FPs of the genus Tetrosomus and, in fact, this is the only examplar I've ever seen of this genus. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty interesting! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 22:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one is swimming away. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was shy, but IMHO the most charasteristic property of this species, its shape, can be well observed from this point of view --Poco a poco (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Yes, but not FP for me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay 💬 15:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, technically fine but although the defining characteristic of the species is visible, that only part of the front is visible and it's swimming away IMO means it's not FP. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 01:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"It's swimming away", well that's what all fishes do. In few cases small fishes enjoyed the lights and played around the camera but that's definitely not the case for bigger fishes. Poco a poco (talk) 07:48, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Swimming away. Thus unappealing view. Most of the other FPs show the animals under better angles, and that's why they're interesting. Here an ordinary picture of a fish from behind, in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good ange of view, IHMO, per above. -- Karelj (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Raja Ravi Varma, Vasantika (oleographic print).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2022 at 19:46:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Religion#Hinduism
Info created by Raja Ravi Varma / The Hemamalini and Ganesh Shivaswamy collection, uploaded by Aavindraa, nominated by Yann (talk)
Info Vasantika, Goddess of Spring (oleographic print), from Raja Ravi Varma. Traditional Indian mythological art. Only 4 FPs in this category.
Support Very high resolution, good quality. -- Yann (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality. --Peulle (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trifolium medium - Niitvälja.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2022 at 19:03:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Fabaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. Presumably would be a VI, too, if nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dinkum (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 05:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mesa Arch Canyonlands sunrise.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2022 at 04:39:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Utah
Info HDR image of sunrise at Mesa Arch in Canyonlands National Park, Utah. All by me. -- Wolf im Wald 04:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 04:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Yann (talk) 08:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! indeed. --Aristeas (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top Poco a poco (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support And *this one* you upload just now? ;-) --A.Savin 11:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been very busy the last few years and only recently found the picture. Sometimes it makes sense to look through old pictures again. :-) -- Wolf im Wald 22:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and impressive view. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Dinkum (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Wilfredor (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special light, nice composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice - Benh (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really good shot of the arch. Maanshen (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 31 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Buforania rufa 100835695.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2022 at 06:16:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods#Family : Acrididae (locusts)
Info created & uploaded by User:99of9 - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like that this grasshopper is the same red color as the earth in that area almost all over for camouflage, yet we can see it very distinctly with lots of detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be able to be improved with some sharpening, but this may have already been tried. I've tried a few camouflaged animal images at FP but without great success. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating harmonious colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nothing gets lost with this camouflaged toadhopper. -- Ivar (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be improved with a bit of sharpening but I don't consider that essential. I'm curious to know where this was taken, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image is geocoded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have categorized it as taken in Western Australia. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods#Family : Acrididae (locusts)

File:Port de Grave Christmas Boat Lighting, Newfoundland, Canada.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2022 at 10:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Canada
Info created and uploaded by Groan86 - nominated by -- IamMM (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very colourful! --SHB2000 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral My guess is that this is a multiple exposures blending (with the sky taken when the boats' lights are off). I personally find the result interesting although the intense saturation might be off putting to some. There are also a bunch of visible seams, hence my neutral vote. But it's a very interesting photography technique, provided it's not a pasted sky (I don't think it is) - Benh (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated and too noisy to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a good look and can't work out what processing/stitching has been done, but the sky looks really weird. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hopelessly overexposed lights, considerable noise, motion blur, sides leaning (verticals not straight), grossly oversaturated into candy colours. Not really a milestone in photography. --Kreuz schnabel 05:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An idea worth trying, to be sure, but per Kreuz. Daniel Case (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments. -- IamMM (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Linz Bindermichlkirche Pfarrkirche hl. Michael Altarseite-0227.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2022 at 01:00:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Austria
Info created & uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This doesn't happen to be my favorite style of church interior or stained glass window, but it's a great example of its type and expertly photographed, with colored light streaming in through the glass. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those pipes in the middle are pretty cool! Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely taken. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. IMO WB is too warm, but may be the light is real. --XRay 💬 07:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 06:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Apidae of Canada over Zinnia elegans 'Zowie Yellow Flame'.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2022 at 01:09:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera#Family_:_Apidae_(Bumble_Bees,_Honey_Bees,_Carpenter_Bees,_Cuckoo_Bees,_Orchid_Bees,_and_Stingless_Bees)
Info all by -- Wilfredor (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neat! — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even with F20, not much of the insect is in focus. We should expect the species of bee to be identified for FP. Are you sure it is a Bombus? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added Bombus. Not certain, but I just put it in the inaturalist app, which agreed. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 11:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larus argentatus - Bremerhaven 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2022 at 07:04:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Larus
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is that a bonus spider in the lower right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sharp eye; seems to be an European garden spider --Llez (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Will support if there is an alt version that is more cropped on the bottom. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't crop more because I think the color of the rusty pillar goes well with the color of the seagull's beak --Llez (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support Llez's opinion that the rusty pillar should not be cropped more because its colors match with the bird. -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm supporting because it is a good portrait with good light and processing, but detail could be higher, specially after looking in the current FP category. Apart from that the shot is easier than in flight and the bird is very common. Poco a poco (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Llez: Great shot, though I think this may be L. michahellis (the closely related yellow-legged gull) rather than L. argentatus, which has pinker legs? — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will check it by time (and eventually rename the file after the nomination is finished). The distribution area of L. michahellis is mainly the Mediterranean area, the photo was taken in Bremerhaven. It does not breed on the North Sea coast, the photo was taken on July 2nd, when young are being reared. This would be an argument against L.m.. But I will check. --Llez (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment any chance to restore overexposed highlights? -- Ivar (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks --Llez (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Isiwal (talk) 04:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice portrait. --Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ordinary bird but compelling composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is very nicely taken, with nice colours, but I think we need the feet for FP of this common bird. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Llez: I think you went overboard when correcting the highlights, and now the image is too dark. The bird's feathers should be bright white, so make sure you have some RGB values of at least 250. It's OK to have a few speckles (no large patches) that gracefully clip at 255. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Llez (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tiled roof of San Nicolò l'Arena.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2022 at 03:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Other
Info: tiled roof of San Nicolò l'Arena, Catania; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like these kind of photographs. But: Please have a closer look to CAs. --XRay 💬 05:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done: red CAs corrected. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you. --XRay 💬 18:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terrible image, no reason for FP nomination at all. -- Karelj (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Karelj: Well IMHO, someone who uploads something like this, is not really in the position to call photos by fellow users terrible; especially not if they actually aren't. Regards --A.Savin 00:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My image is like it is, but the basic difference is, that I do not suggest it for FP. Here is the base of problem. -- Karelj (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't have to be so insulting. You can just state what you think is wanting in it or not to your taste, and leave it at that. And Urban Versis, I believe that "no wow factor" is not a basis for a "strong oppose", which should be reserved for photos that utterly suck. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Karelj: This has nothing to do with suggesting on FPC or not; this only means that you probably do not know the difference between plain "no wow" and "terrible"; which lets me strongly doubt about your competence to assess pictures on Commons or elsewhere. But no surprise, the poor quality of your reviews has been known since long time. Regards --A.Savin 11:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: Well, I believe, that the level of my reviews is minimum on the same level as yours... -- Karelj (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colin compiled some stats recently which cover accuracy of nominations (though not reviews). Seems somewhat relevant here. User:Colin/FPC. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "terrible image" is not appropriate here. COM:MELLOW reminds us all that not everyone expresses themselves in the way that others might best understand and that applies both for those upset about this comment as well as Karelj, who should absorb the opinion that their choice of words wasn't optimal. -- Colin (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek I agree, and I am sorry for my quick judgement, especially after reading Karelj's vote. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong oppose~~ Oppose (see above comments) per Karelj, now wow factor. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Karelj. --Fischer.H (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me this image is not only well done, but to me it also is beautiful in its simplicity while showing us a lot about European culture, and the history of architecture. --Kritzolina (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, especially in such a fascinating category. -- Pofka (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see any reason for FP, but very rude to say "Terrible image" Karelj. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea and certainly a well-taken photograph, but it doesn't strike my fancy as a great composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad pic as such of course, but somehow out of frame here. As for categorization, being a closeup shot of a tiled roof of a religious building doesn’t make it a picture of a religious building – this could be any roof. As for composition, I don’t quite like the dominating vertical streak of shadow along the right edge, looking a bit grim to me. No problems on QI for sure, maybe VI with a fitting scope, but I don’t think it’s overall one of the very best we have. --Kreuz schnabel 06:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding categorization: IMHO this photo fits much better into our Architectural elements gallery page, for now just in the Other section. Changing the gallery link to that gallery page also emphasizes the strenghs of this photo: It is not a representative photo of the San Nicolò l’Arena church, indeed, but it is a very nice minimalist photograph of an old roof with old hand-made roof tiles, each one of them a little bit different. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done: recategorized The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kritzolina & Aristeas. It starts out as a wonderfully minimalist photo at first sight until you start to move your eyes around a bit. Then all those slightly different forms, color variations from green to orange and then the different kinds of lichen on top ... Agree that this should be filed under Architectural elements, of course. --El Grafo (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It does not work for me. I find the angle strange. Dinkum (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not only do I find it striking visually, it is an excellent illustration of this type of roof that should be lead image for the roof-tile article in every wiki. I would, however, suggest cropping at the bottom and the right to mitigate that distracting shadow (see note). Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, it might be a good VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Harsh light. Nothing special in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI for me -- Wolf im Wald 05:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not even a QI nor a VI for me. --SHB2000 (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:SBB RBDe 560 «Domino» bei Linthal.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2022 at 10:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by David Gubler - uploaded by David Gubler - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 10:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 10:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice composition although the size is quite small. --Micha (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FP in 2009, but in my opinion, too small now, and I don't love the hazy hillside on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the hazy background that's distracting me. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah this one is not up there with other FPs. The composition is certainly nice but the weather and lighting was pretty ugly, and again taken with a 50D there's not much I can do to improve any of that. I hope I can redo this one at some point. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination —Bruce1ee^talk 17:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green frog (Pelophylax esculentus complex) Danube delta.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2022 at 14:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Amphibians#Family : Ranidae (True Frogs)
Info 5 FPs, but none illustrating the animal's webbed and unwebbed feet. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Outstanding photo! But is there a bit of a halo in front of its head and diffuse ones around the three front feet? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting observation. The lighter areas around the feet are there in RAW. Must be some reflection off the legs. The 'halo' in front of the head is also there in RAW and is a 'bow wave' caused by the head having just moved. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, thanks for the explanations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it Poco a poco (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one's certainly not easy to take. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sky unsplash 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2022 at 17:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by Ryan Hutton - uploaded by Vikarna - nominated by Артём 13327 -- Артём 13327 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Артём 13327 (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice but not huge. Maybe we've been spoiled with greater, bigger photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also maybe too noisy even for a night picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too noisy and overprocessed. We have better images of a starry sky (1,2,3) --Kreuz schnabel 13:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and Kreuz. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skyscraper in Dhaka.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2022 at 15:56:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info created by Wasiul Bahar - uploaded by Wasiul Bahar - nominated by Wasiul Bahar
Oppose Could be a useful VI (nominate to COM:VIC) but though I like the angle, this photo is not great in any way. Very noisy, light is nothing notable, partially blocked by foliage. FPC is for photos that are the greatest on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, no metadata. You should mention which mobile phone (I suppose) you used. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Poor image quality (things like sharpness, colours, low-noise, detail resolution) might be excused on an action or sports shot but never in architectural photography. I am aware we are talking about 38 megapixels here but even in 50 percent view (9.5 megapixels) the quality drawbacks are still visible. Sorry to contradict the cellphone ads but "megapixel number" does not correspond with "image quality". --Kreuz schnabel 05:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kreuzschnabel,@Ikan Kekek

Thanks for your vote and honest opinions. Actually I am a novice in photography. The only device I use to take photos is a Redmi 10C smartphone which I bought with a Wikimedia scholarship. I tried to take some photos with that smartphone. This was one of the first clicks of my life. So I thought to nominate this for featured photos.

As you mentioned some problems in this photo, can you recommend anything to improve the photo? Should I change the angle or camera settings or should I edit the photo to correct the brightness and color? or should I wait for the sun to set in the opposite of this building so that the details could be more visible? How can I improve the resolution?

Thanks again. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 07:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be able to advise you on anything technical, but I suggest you go to COM:Photography critiques for such advice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can I suggest you nominate some images at QI and see how they get on. Images are best fully described and geocoded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan Kekek. -- Karelj (talk) 10:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose FPX template would have been the right choice here, the image is unfortunately far from QI --Poco a poco (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could have chosen that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: I thought that that template should be used just at the beginning of a nom. I've never used it anyhow and don't feel comfortable about when to use it but I've the impression thta it has been used in better images like this one. Poco a poco (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've often seen it after several negative votes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No wow factor. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. @Wasiul Bahar: this is how I got an FP out of the same idea, and why I would have liked to support yours. I offer it to you here as perhaps an inspiration as to how you could make this work. Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case Thanks for the words. In my case the building was in a busy area and other building was so close to other building that I wasn't able to capture the whole structure. When I capture this the sun was behind the building, so the lighting was not perfect. And I took this photo while walking from a busy crowd and I didn't be able to take perfect position. I will try again with this experience later.

Thanks again for your advice. Wasiul Bahar (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case another thing. Can you check this images of some important building of Bangladesh. Is any of this is eligible for Fi, Vi or Qi?

1, 2, 3 Wasiul Bahar (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image:St. Mariä Himmelfahrt 2022-08-21 Hochaltar.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2022 at 17:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info created by 2015 Michael 2015 - uploaded by 2015 Michael 2015 - nominated by 2015 Michael 2015 -- 2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too far of the standard for a FPC, nor QIC, too noise and unsharp, sorry --Ezarateesteban 13:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see your complains ... Have you downloaded the pic and opened it with some dedicated viewer and then watched it at 1:1? If no: At least my browser shows it at zoom unsharp but even with the browser the noise (chroma and luminance) level is not anyhow bad. 2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Ezarate. FPC is not about "not bad"; photos of church interiors that we feature are much sharper than this, because they have to be among the greatest photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment +1. While this is not a bad picture admittedly, photos which are “not bad” are taken care of at QI or VI. Here in FP it’s about excellence, about outstandingly fine images, the best of the best, and I cannot see this here. Too noisy, not quite sharp for a still object, counterlight not handled properly (mostly the blueish spots behind the top part of the altar), verticals are leaning in. Have a look at Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings to get an idea what kind of pictures you are in competition with. Then, lacking metadata – Exif, geolocation and so on – is a minus as well. --Kreuzschnabel 09:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Kreuzschnabel "QI or VI" don't know what it means, there are much too much abbreviations in use at Wiki* | As mentioned "Too noisy, not quite sharp" is not my impression, else I would not have nominated it. | "verticals are leaning in" yes this is a minus | "Then, lacking metadata – Exif, ... so on – is a minus as well." The used HW and its settings are important for a picture (evaluation)? This is in my view wrong, i.e. almost none of my pictures get those data. | Thank you for the link, I would withdraw my photo if there is some method to do so. 2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Commons:Quality Images and Commons:Valued Images. As for “not my impression” – when nominating a picture here, you are asking for other’s opinions on it, and that’s exactly what you got. If you just want your opinions confirmed, don’t put your picture up for evaluation. --Kreuz schnabel 16:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination 2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Las Vegas, 2016 Dale Chihuly Sculpture en verre du Bellagio (1).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2022 at 10:47:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Domes
Info created by Pierre André Leclercq - uploaded by Pierre André Leclercq - nominated by Pierre André Leclercq -- Pierre André ^(talk) 10:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierre André ^(talk) 10:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose, this is an other version of the other nom, but only one version of the same photo may be promoted. Withdraw this nom and propose it there as alternative instead. --A.Savin 06:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination this is an other version File:Fiori di Como by Dale Chihuly at the Bellagio Hotel & Casino. in Las Vegas 2016.jpg. Thanks for yous advice,best regards.--Pierre André ^(talk) 14:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maharaj Kumar Rani Sita Devi of Kapurthala.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2022 at 21:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Andre Durst, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Glamour of an Indian princess. -- Yann (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Pretty photo, but what is all that brighter stuff behind her, above her and to her sides in the picture plain? Is that damage to the photo, that it's scuffed and scratched? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. May be a reflection of light on the back wall? Anyway, I would not remove that. Yann (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose the background is distracting. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:A Karen woman weaving.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2022 at 10:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created and uploaded by Varvara Kless-Kaminskaia - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pleasant colors and lighting, however I think that perspective with full human body would be much better. Other featured pictures in this category also have full or nearly full human bodies. See relevant FPs examples: 1, 2. I believe this picture is not on the same level, sorry. -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If your main worry is that this does not fit the category, because you expect to see all of a person there, please suggest another category. I believe full body pictures have their worth, but so do images that show only a certain detail, in this case the hands. --Kritzolina (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality is not perfect, but I like the composition. Tomer T (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tomer T. The focus is exactly on the point where the weaving happens. --Aristeas (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The clothes are traditional, but not the watch and wrist bands. The focus should be on the hands, but they are blurred. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another picture that I would expect to see in National Geographic. I like it for the reason Charles doesn't: the juxtaposition between the modern accessories and the traditional clothes and craft. As well as the bright color. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I simply don't see the wow factor. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case -- IamMM (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No the wow factor (as IamMM). -- Karelj (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(as SHB2000 most probably) -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Fine as QI but not so striking an image in my view. Agree with Pofka. I also regret the DoF is very shallow. Too limited focus range. The ring is unsharp, and the blurry foreground corner rather distracting -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hintersee - Hochkalter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2022 at 18:36:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info Looking up from the Lake Hintersee too the Hochkalter-Mountains in the Berchtesgaden Alps. All by me -- Milseburg (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really excellent, and the clouds streaming from above to the recess in the middle of the mountains help make the picture more special. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine image --Isiwal (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan; this photo emphasizes the high and steepness of the mountains very effectively. --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scenery is fine but the light does not work to me. It looks like it was taken against the sun. The right part is washed out -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The right hand side seems hazy Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I wish the sky were uniform altocumulus, but the mountain(s) are a compelling enough subject to compensate for that. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good --Yeriho (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Hazy light, uninteresting foreground. The clouds and juxtaposition of the snow and greenery are very nice, but not enough to make up for the previous two issues. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regret per Basile and King of Hearts. Image is good quality, just not FP IMHO. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cheveche d'Athena Aqueduc de Zaghouan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2022 at 19:27:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by El Golli Mohamed -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to study how other FPs are categorized and follow their example, showing the bird family. The crop does not help this image which is QI standard. The bird is partially hidden by the rocks and lacks detail. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will try. thanks El Golli Mohamed (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct FP category still missing. I have suggested a crop, though the rule of thirds is OK too. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support A well-achieved bokeh and a penetrating gaze --Wilfredor (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Do not crop it! --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good as it is, with empty space to breathe. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support moderate detail level but good composition -- Wolf im Wald 04:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Strigidae (True Owls)

File:Tallinn asv2022-04 img43 Our Lady of Kazan Church.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2022 at 11:22:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Painted ceilings
Info Ceiling fresco of the Church of Our Lady of Kazan, Tallinn. All by me --A.Savin 11:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 11:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: The crops strike me as a little close and the uneven light is not ideal for this kind of photo, but overall, it's a very well-taken photo of a somewhat unusual style of Christian fresco for FPC, so I think it merits a star, but the point is certainly arguable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The uneven light creates some noise issues on the left side. And the whole thing doesn't stand out from our other church ceiling photos. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per D. Case, add some light around to frescos. Left side especially. --Mile (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)--Mile (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarantula Nebula by JWST.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2022 at 05:35:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info created by NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, Webb ERO Production Team - uploaded and nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yesss! I'm a big fan of JWST and the images produced so far are all great! --Granada (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Granada. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GyozaDumpling (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Micha (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yeriho (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Another great JWST photo. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Huge resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 07:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 11:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Nebulae

File:Black-billed cuckoo (35211).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2022 at 16:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Order_:_Cuculiformes_(Cuckoos)
Info Black-billed cuckoo. Notoriously difficult to find/photograph due to hanging out in dense foliage and remaining motionless for long periods of time. Often heard but not seen. I got lucky with an unusually conspicuous one this weekend. No FP of this genus, and only four of the family. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tricky birds to find, cuckoos, but composition, background and technical quality not there. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Charles. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Seen from below is not the most appealing angle in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Golli Mohamed 20:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SHB2000 Poco a poco (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. -- Karelj (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maharaj Kumar Rani Sita Devi of Kapurthala, edit.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2022 at 20:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Andre Durst, uploaded and nominated by Yann
Support Glamour of an Indian princess. Edited as suggested in the previous nom. Also cropped to square. -- Yann (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of dirty marks - I think a fingerprint - on the right hand side of the lower (sideways) crystal. Otherwise, it looks quite nice. Background is maybe a smidgen darker than I'd have gone, but acceptable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I wrote a few days ago on a Wikipedia FPC, "we shouldn't be trying to imrove the original. Restoration here should be about restoring a print artwork to how it was. Not trying to improve the original". Yann's comment on editing the background on the original nomination was sound, "I would not do that." Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm OK with this as pointedly an edit of the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'll have to agree with Charles here. This should be treated as an artwork, not something that can be "improved" upon. Pretty sure the photographer intentionally chose to do the framing like this. Cropping it to a square very much changes how the image feels. Same for the background, there was probably some dodging and/or burning applied in the dark room to brighten the center/darken the edges. Now we've got an unnatural-looking, pitch black background without any grain structure - that's not an improvement at all. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original artwork is a famous photograph coming from a Museum of Art and Photography. It has a ratio of 5:4, which means the photographer Andre Durst did not opted for a square, width = height. It is a portrait aspect, vertical framing featuring a vertical crystal obelisk in the center of the image.

As said before, altering the format of a famous photograph is a sacrilege in my view. See Lead room in photography, or Ma (negative space). Empty spaces in paintings and photographs are never meaningless. For example you cannot cut the sixth panel of this painting just because it's empty. Free spaces produce a visual impact for most of the observers, and the arrangement of these volumes in space constitutes an essential part of the artistic creation. -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination People are never happy. Some want it edited, some want the original; some want it cropped, some don't... Yann (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aphantopus hyperantus (two) - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2022 at 04:58:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Nymphalidae_(Brush-footed_Butterflies)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 08:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Very detailed, special pairing, good light and composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 07:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Nymphalidae_(Brush-footed_Butterflies)

File:Berlin-Mitte - Alte Nationalgalerie - Kuppel - Innenansicht (6860).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2022 at 03:53:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Domes
Info There is one existing FP from the interior of this dome. created and uploaded by T meltzer - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 03:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly better than the previous FP, which should be Delist and replace 'd. --A.Savin 08:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Savin: Do I need to change something here? I was planning to create a nomination for removal and replacement, but due to the difference in lens angles and the confusing conditions I proceeded in the normal way. -- IamMM (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is probably only possible if you withdraw this nom and create a D+R nom instead. Regards --A.Savin 19:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it is too late for this. after the end of this nom, I will create another one for the removal of the old FP. -- IamMM (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice light & composition -- Wolf im Wald 04:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Giant Otter (Pteronura brasiliensis), Parque Estadual Encontro das Águas Thomas-Fuhrmann 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2022 at 08:00:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family : Mustelidae (Mustelids)
Info created & uploaded by Snowmanstudios - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My initial enthusiasm has waned. 1/800 sec with such a long lens is not ideal for a moving target. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomer T thank you for nominating this image! Snowmanstudios (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Very nice, but unfortunately too much of motion blur. --A.Savin 12:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning toward opposing because it's sharp at 30% but not 40%. That said, if the prey animal can be identified, it should be identified and categorized. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose what a good moment, but the focus point got somewhere on the nose and because of this most of the otter is oof, too bad... -- Ivar (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife, España, 2022-01-07, DD, DD 102-104 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2022 at 22:14:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Spain
Info Cathedral of San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a computer in the picture ;-) --A.Savin 12:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a single image? (Also, the red-linked categories should be removed.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek I just cleaned up the categories, one was uncomplete and I created the other one. It's not a single image. I always provide that kind of information in the title, it's a HDR of 3 images (otherwise it would be impossible to expose all areas in the image properly), why do you ask? --Poco a poco (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the noise toward the near corners, especially on the wood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I put it to you: Is a bit of noise reduction possible, particularly on the wood on the right side? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ikan Kekek, it was a bussy week, I just uploaded a new version with some denoising in the lower darker areas, specially the bottom right corner, what do you think? Poco a poco (talk) 09:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support No reason to apologize! I think that's a good improvement, and I'm satisfied that it's an FP now, overall. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The workstation on the right is a little bit disturbing. Usually finds such untidy places in the churches behind closed doors. ;-) --XRay 💬 07:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunset over the ice of Brofjorden 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2022 at 07:39:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Sweden
Info created by W.carter - uploaded by W.carter - nominated by Артём 13327 -- Артём 13327 (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Артём 13327 (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the "fire and ice" vibe of this photo, but as nice as it is for you to nominate one of Cart's photos, I don't think she would want one of her photos to be considered here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 08:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I was just made aware of this nom. I didn't get any 'ping' and I seldom visit this section now. I already know that my photos are boring and of inferior quality for FPC. I have no desire to run the gauntlet here again. --Cart (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pity! For me, this is a great recording that I would have loved to have made myself.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my personal opinion, after viewing your photos, they are the exact opposite of being boring or of inferior technical quality. You have the attentive eye for fascinating details, which are underrepresented in this forum. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cart, I understand your decision, but I have to admit that I really would have liked to vote for this photo. For me, it’s clearly one of the best shots on Commons (and you are clearly one of the best photographers we have). I have still no reliable internet connection, but this photo is so good that I had to borrow a friend’s computer just to comment on this one. ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 07:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought only the nominator could withdraw nominations? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read the rules. General rules #6: "Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time." --Cart (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have been reprimanded about withdrawing this nom, I stand corrected and apologize to the nominator Артём 13327. It was rude since the nomination was made in good faith, and they have no idea about old feuds on FPC. My bad.

It was also pointed out that since I donate my photos to the WikiProject, they should be available to be used anywhere on Commons or Wikipedia, even on FPC and QIC, unless there is some very special reason. I see the logic in that.

So, use my photos as you see fit, here, QIC or any other part of the project. I will however take the same position as JJ Harrison does, and stay out of nominations and discussions. Accept or reject my photos as they are, do not ask me to alter them and please don't overwrite them. I agree with what Frank Schulenburg said here, but of course, he is more diplomatic and have better manners than me. Someday, in the future, perhaps the FPC will once again be a less toxic place where photographers will enjoy exchanging ideas in a collegial way, but I think that would involve some major changes.

'Pinging' those who have been involved in this nom: A.Savin, Famberhorst, Radomianin, Aristeas, Ikan Kekek, Charlesjsharp, Daniel Case. I apologize for my abrupt behavior and the inconvenience. --Cart (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted as always. I know I am not alone in regretting your absence from this forum. Daniel Case (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much for reactivating the nomination. When the mentioned feuds had their peak time on FPC, I was not yet active in this forum. But in my opinion, now and then such poisonous echoes can be heard, which are far beyond appropriate criticism. This is unfortunate, because FPC is a place for all interested photo enthusiasts. So I understand your attitude to this issue, which should be respected by regular users despite the Commons usage rulebook. Nevertheless, I have hope that we will all be able to help make this important forum a kinder place. Best wishes, -- Radomianin (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. I love the contrast of ‘fire and ice’, of warm and cold colours etc., the timeless beauty and the serene mood. --Aristeas (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, atmospheric capture! -- Radomianin (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cart, it's very broadminded of you to allow us to vote on this, and lest there be any confusion, I mean that totally sincerely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. Has a nice otherworldly feel to it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tumba de Ramsés V y de Ramsés VI, Valle de las Reyes, Luxor, Egipto, 2022-04-03, DD 69.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2022 at 10:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
Info Passage of the tomb KV9 of the pharaohs Ramesses V and Ramses VI, Valley of the Kings, Luxor, Egypt. The tomb was originally constructed by Pharaoh Ramesses V (who reigned between 1149–1145 BC). He was interred here, but his uncle, Ramesses VI (who reigned eight full years and two months in the mid-to-late 12th century BC), later reused the tomb as his own. The layout is typical of the 20th Dynasty – the Ramesside period. The workmen accidentally broke into KV12 (probably used for multiple burials of royal family members in the Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties) as they dug one of the corridors. The KV9 tomb has some of the most diverse decoration in the Valley of the Kings. In the image the first hall, also called pillared hall, is depicted; a double scene of Osiris (God of fertility) is visible in the middle, above the ramp descending to the second corridor. Note: Surprisingly we have no FPs of ancient Egypt. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Almost. Can you remove or at least decrease the color noise that's mostly in the foreground and middleground? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: Good point, Done Poco a poco (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Very nice, although no fish are to be seen :) --Micha (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least it has been taken with the same camera :) --Poco a poco (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Yann (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting content -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the colors are original and not recently added, the modern paint industry should be ashamed. -- IamMM (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Peulle (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--KTC (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Amazing that you managed to get the image without getting other people about. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You bet :) I've other images of similar scenes with 50 heads...Poco a poco (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Wolf im Wald 04:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GRDN711. I remember that when we visited the tombs in 1988 or so, we almost gave up to take photographs – the light was very difficult (for the cameras and films of that time) and the many people ruined the shots. So this photo is a real achievement. --Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Small chocolate-tip (Clostera pigra) male Danube delta.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2022 at 14:39:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Notodontidae
Info Focus-stacked image of a 15mm long moth. One FP of the family. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral 1/80 maybe too slow. lack of focus especially in the middle and back. The surface it is standing on, what is it? --Wilfredor (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a painted table. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per Wilfredor, evident in back and water droplets. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Wilfredor but as opponent. Sebring12Hrs -- 15:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing doesn't make you an opponent! Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, considering the size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice subject, but detail is not really wowing to me, sorry and the table is a strange surface for wildlife Poco a poco (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Poco a Poco. --Fischer.H (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadian Senate Chamber.jpeg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2022 at 07:48:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Canada
Info created & uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like this to be a bit sharper and twice as big. But a good QI and presumably a good VI nominee, if offered. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Ikan about the sharpness and size, but this is the best image we have of the interior of this building on Commons. Good enough for FP status for me. -- IamMM (talk) 06:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a VIC argument to me. I'd like to hold FP for a better image of this great building's interior. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although the sharpness and resolution are not very high by today's standards, it seems OK for 2014. The framing well covers the key elements of the building such as the ceiling, paintings and the main hall, and the light is fine in my eyes. This one has the best presentation among the images in the Category:Chamber of the Senate of Canada and considering this, it can deserve a star but I understand why such tolerance may not be desirable for perfectionist FPC users. If the nom is passed, whenever a picture with better details is uploaded it can be delisted and replaced. -- IamMM (talk)

True. My feeling, though, is that we shouldn't judge this as if it were 2014 today; we're judging it today. I think it's different when we're dealing with much more obviously historic photos, such as one taken 110 years ago. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan Kekek. -- Karelj (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IamMM. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IamMM. — Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 6 MP interior is no longer impressive. Also, since GFDL-only is banned at FPC, I think in the same spirit we should not be promoting images that use any deprecated licenses as the "finest freely licensed images on Commons". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacques-Cartier National Park, Quebec, Canada 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2022 at 15:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#Québec
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Certainly a nice place to be, but I successfully fail to see what’s meant to be outstanding here. --Kreuz schnabel 20:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the sense I get of being pushed along by the current in the river on a nice, mostly sunny day. The main thing that gives me pause is the contrail - those things are inescapable, nowadays, but they do spoil the idyllic quality of the photo somewhat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the picture too, as I already said, and personally I like canoeing very much. Still, being pretty does not make this image outstanding. What’s the topic? I just don’t get it. We have dozens of images of quiet rivers and rocky banks, and I could fall in love with each. --Kreuz schnabel 12:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination This image has nothing special for many people. I remember that when I arrived in Canada I used to spend time taking photos of the houses, I found those wooden houses so beautiful and very different from what I was used to in Latin America, everything very clean and tidy. One day I was with a Canadian friend and I showed him my photos, he started laughing and asked me if I worked in a real estate company. At that moment I understood that they were not special photos for him because the environment where he had grown up was full of this very common scene, since then I continue taking photos of things that only seem interesting to people who come from the same culture. In conclusion, what is special about a scene is relative and for me everything is special here and even the circumstantial elements to get there, behind each photo that I place here there is a story, but I never write anything because I always hope that the same photo speak for itself. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're withdrawing prematurely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. I was looking forward to !voting on it. Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

+1. --Aristeas (talk) 08:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-1 (sorry) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys for your feedback, I really don't think this photo has a wow factor or special --Wilfredor (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grande aigrette lac de Tunis002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2022 at 17:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info Great Egret (Ardea alba) at Tunis south lake created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by El Golli Mohamed --El Golli Mohamed (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bushes in the foreground seem to be distracting, lack of depth of field to see the entire bird. Excessive use of noise reduction that has ended up eliminating the texture of the bird's feathers, IMHO no fixable --Wilfredor (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use any noise reduction. Why would I use it if the ISO are 125? --El Golli Mohamed (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 02:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Should this nomination be closed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 20 september 2022 El Golli Mohamed (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stefan Nemanja monument (Belgrade, Serbia).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2022 at 11:16:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues outdoors
Info Stefan Nemanja monument by night (Belgrade, Serbia). My photo. -- Mile (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 11:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow (limited artistic value of the sculpture to me; might be matter of taste though), suboptimal light (overexposed highlights; HDR might have helped or just choose Blue hour for taking the photo), distorted perspective. The correct FP gallery I've changed for you (you're welcome). --A.Savin 12:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info A.Savin you were too quick. Nothing is overexposed, and this is HDR. Distorted perspective, thats normal for 10 mm and aiming at angle. Would you like building to be paralel ? Be serious. --Mile (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is overexposed? Open in Photoshop & look at histogram, I would say. --A.Savin 03:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is "overexposed" for you ? Normaly this means color code in RGB (255,255,255) or #ffffff in Hexadecinal. I could not find one pixel ot blown color. --Mile (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mile, just to clarify: you're mixing up two related but different concepts here. An image can be over-exposed (i.e. subjectively perceived as "too bright") without a single pixel clipping. An image can also have even large areas of plain white without being perceived as over-exposed (e.g. in high-key photography). El Grafo (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flip side: Interesting monument to me, colossal and very sharp, with significant glare in only one area: the cross, which arguably benefits metaphorically from being resplendent. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Savin. Very badly handled HDR with an important feature mostly white clipped. And if the result is bad with a wide angle lens, just use a longer focal and step back. Not like there's no room to. I don't like the very black sky either. - Benh (talk) 09:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I can see what you might have been thinking but it just didn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Mile (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Untersberg panoramic view winter.jpg (delist), not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2022 at 19:27:52

Info Outstanding resolution and wowing scene even by current standards, but colors and white balance are off and may never have met FP standards. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Milseburg (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the point? White balance could be corrected, isn't? Yann (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Background is a little noisy by today's standards and I found a tiny dust spot, but I'd suggest for someone to edit it if they like and would oppose delisting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment colors look reasonable on my (crappy but hardware-calibrated) screen. Maybe a bit on the blue side, but that's in line with how you would perceive the scenery up there. --El Grafo (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Extremely distorted and poorly stitched by today's standards for 360º panoramas. Might have been acceptable in 2009, but 13 years have passed and technology has long since marched on. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /--A.Savin 02:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toungesari Island.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2022 at 11:58:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Northwestern Federal District
Info created by Vsatinet - uploaded by Vsatinet - nominated by Vsatinet -- Vsatinet (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vsatinet (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please upload the full resolution. The smaller resolution looks downsampled and unsharp. --XRay 💬 14:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK. Full-size uploaded, but for this scene, some reduction in resolution is not critical, I think. At least when viewed from a practical point of view - for example, for printing. Vsatinet (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Maybe not, but please consider that this is Featured Picture Candidates, where we try to determine which photos are the greatest on the site. This photo is a beautiful sunset, but sunsets are often beautiful, and I submit that this photo is not exceptional. But had it been larger and sharper, it might have been, as the composition is very good to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe this photo is not suitable for featured images. But, just for information, it's not sunset, at this time, at this latitude (2 degrees below the Arctic Circle), sunset occurs a couple of hours later than the time of the picture. So it's like a cloudy day in summer around 5-6 pm at mid-latitudes. Vsatinet (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan ... we have a lot of photos of scenes like this (trust me; I've categorized more than enough of them) and as a golden-hour type image of the sun through clouds reflecting on water this just does not stand out. As I have said before, if you nominate an image of a sunset for FP either it better have more to it than the sunset (like Cart's image below, which at this point seems likely to pass) or make us feel like we've never seen a sunset before. Or, even better, both. Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ibis falcinelle Soliman.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2022 at 19:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by El Golli Mohamed -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose until the FP were categorized, I just categorize the another but you have to learn to do it Ezarateesteban 23:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC) solved[reply]

Done, thank you El Golli Mohamed (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful but too unsharp/noisy for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to study how other FPs are categorized and follow their example, showing bird family. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I upladed a version fixing the out of focus, however, I rollbacked myself because it need author approval --Wilfredor (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to change itbut I give you my approval to do it. Thanks El Golli Mohamed (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Support --Wilfredor (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only moderately better to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose still very noisy. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Beak and head are slightly unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prisojnik from Vrsic Pass (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2022 at 13:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Slovenia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous! Yann (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support One peak rising above a rolling hill is enough when it looks like this. Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive in full view. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peulle (talk) 06:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice mountain. Maanshen (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St George Guildhall in Torun (7).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2022 at 13:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Poland
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo but lacks wow, imo.--Peulle (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Peulle, but also has clearly distorted upper left. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:19-11-09-Alte-Nationalgalerie DSF4154.jpg (delist)[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2022 at 08:54:50

Info There is a better FP from the dome of the Alte Nationalgalerie.

(Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:19-11-09-Alte-Nationalgalerie DSF4154.jpg)

Delist -- IamMM (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --A.Savin 10:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strongly request close. A.Savin on the new image nomination suggested "Delist and replace" but this procedure is commonly confused with the procedure on English Wikipedia FP where there can typically only be one FP of a given photo, and the image is "replaced" in the article. On Commons, the rule for "delist and replace" is strictly for when an existing image has been reworked/improved, and explicitly not for this situation where someone has come along and taken a new photo. This image here was only taken and nominated a few years ago and got enthusiastic support from 18 reviewers. Both images are quite different in terms of crop and exposure, with the new one arguably over-exposed and this one under-exposed. On Commons we can have several FPs of the same view/subject and we generally only delist an image if it now falls way short of the standard we'd expect today, and I suggest that nominating images for delist that got a solid 18 supports three years ago is looking at the wrong end of the quality spectrum. -- Colin (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Not sure about closing it, seems more debatable. Regardless of the image that was recently featured, this image doesn't meet the FP criteria IMO. The number of votes is a tricky issue and affected by the situation for example this image that I think is my best nom so far could not reach 10 votes. We've had other cases here that passed FPC with shaky consensus but won POTY, and we've had images with +30 votes that didn't find success there. -- IamMM (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Well all the voting is a bit random at times, but really, I think this one got nominated "because we now have a better one", which isn't valid reason to delist on Commons. Wouldn't you agree? -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. My understanding of A. Savin's comment is that the difference in quality is significant enough to justify this image not deserving of FP status. I consider myself a low-expectation voter, but I can't really see it as FP in this case. The marble columns on the sides and the statues between the smaller circles are completely missing and as an architectural that is clearly color-oriented, it looks too dark. If we consider the dome itself as the subject, showing sky blue instead of turquoise is still unpleasant for an image that is supposed to be one of the best. -- IamMM (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colin. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Still a perfectly good picture and in no way obviously undeserving of the star. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm all for delisting old FPs that are not up to modern standards any more, but that's not the case here. We can and should have more than one FP providing different views of a subject. --El Grafo (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep !? --Mile (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like delist old FPs... --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ikan --Isiwal (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Continuing this is a waste of users' time, although I still can't give the slightest chance for this image to be FP-level. -- IamMM (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Genex Tower (кула Генекс, Западна капија Београда).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2022 at 09:00:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info Genex Tower by night. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful composition. Looks like a shot straight from 2001: A Space Odyssey, which IMO has the best photography of any space movie. - Benh (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
would have an even better Space Odyssey vide if it were rotated 90° CW, but just my two cents - Benh (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. When I saw it on QIC, my first thought was similar – a flying object from Earth orbit. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually thought this was another water reflection image at first ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. --Aristeas (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Argenberg (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yellowstone National Park (WY, USA), Grand Prismatic Spring -- 2022 -- 2519.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2022 at 07:35:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Wyoming
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 07:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 07:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice colours and texture. -- Ivar (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ivar Poco a poco (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Light dust spot in upper left corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done There you check above and below, right and left and yet you always miss something. Thanks for the hint. The dust spot is gone. --XRay 💬 09:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Peulle (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer your existing FP taken one minute earlier. I don't think we need two. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes the place and time are ideal for several great pictures. This place is just fascinating. (It's good that you can not convey the smell of sulfur). --XRay 💬 15:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you link your existing FP?, It is always good, politely, to mention it --Wilfredor (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is this one. --XRay 💬 21:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like the existing FP better, too. This photo shows a very striking sight, but the other one has a more satisfying composition to me. I haven't decided how or whether to vote on this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yeriho (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, except the tight crop at the top -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20220814 European Championships Munich 2022 Ľubomír Pištej 850 3618.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2022 at 05:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual_sports
Info created & uploaded by Granada – nominated by Ivar (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support With that look of intense concentration, this is a memorable photo, and I think the sharpness is sufficient for a live-action sports photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 18:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks unnatural imo. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also like his look of concentration that resembles his plan to where the ball should go next to his service. That table in the Rudi Sedlmayer Halle in Munich was one of the darkest so he automatically stands out against the background. --Granada (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For me, the background is too disturbing to support. --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Granada. Daniel Case (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Granada. --Aristeas (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek. Gyrostat (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Las Vegas, Dale Chihuly Sculpture en verre du Bellagio (Mandala).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2022 at 12:02:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Domes
Info created by Pierre André Leclercq - uploaded by Pierre André Leclercq - nominated by Pierre André Leclercq -- Pierre André ^(talk) 10:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierre André ^(talk) 12:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Micha (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Kaleidoscopic appearance -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Basile Morin, it's a mandala. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain According to the file name, I thought it was this sculpture recently nominated seen from another angle, in the same room. Now I realize it is a photomontage. And I don't understand the idea of "Mandala" in its spiritual dimension. Apparently the entrepreneur Dale Chihuly installed this glass artwork on the ceiling of the casino Bellagio in Las Vegas. As long as the author of the sculpture is mentioned, and the transformation allowed, I have nothing against the derivative work to be hosted here, but as FP I doubt it is a faithful representation of the original work. Perhaps an interesting digital symmetrical assemblage, but more an anecdotal patchwork than a sacred "Mandala artwork" in my view. I choose to abstain because the educational scope of this candidature is unclear to me -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThank you for your opinion. My work was created with a personal photograph of Dale Chihuly Sculpture in Bellagio Las Vegas.- Nevada (USA), (original photography: File:Fiori di Como by Dale Chihuly at the Bellagio Hotel & Casino. in Las Vegas 2016.jpg). This work was done for the new challenge features 2022 – Septembre Abstract photography, with the software Gimp 2.10.32. Filtre/Distorsions/Kaleidoscope. (The category mandala may be improper). Best regards.-

Pierre André ^(talk) 14:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. A mix of sculpture / photography and collage / montage. However the FoP in the USA is not okay for 3D artworks. I wonder if the original picture is allowed on Commons -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would rather see the original sculpture. Is it not rather unrespectful to try to improve on someone's artwork by creating your a mandala?. Possible copyright issues, but I don't know. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp: When will you stop making nonsense votes and comments on FPC? Yann (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean. As an Admin. I assume you are being serious. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yann I am still wating for an explanation for why you cose to be so rude in calling my edits "nonsense". Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking as an admin, but as a participant of FPC. Reading your negative comments, it seems that, outside of wildlife photography, you don't know what you are talking about. They are either irrelevant, beside the point, or completely out of touch with photography technics and standards. They make the whole FPC a pain. Several contributors reduced their participation, or left. No wonder why with people like you. Others would probably abstain in such cases, but that supposes knowning one's ignorance. You may say: "But I am entitled to say so." Yes, FPC rules even allow stupid comments. Probably, they shouldn't... Yann (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Yann, have a look at the hundreds of "per Charles" in the archives (example 21 occurrences last month, including yours ) and perhaps you'll realize that your jugement is rather inadequate. Charles' reviews are very often singular and personal, but also constructive in general. In any case diversity is an asset at FPC in my opinion. The reason given to justify the vote here is provided in the first sentence. Then the rest seems to be questions about copyright or moral concerns. No outrage in my view. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThank you for your opinion. My work was created with a personal photograph of Dale Chihuly Sculpture in Bellagio Las Vegas.- Nevada (USA), (original photography: File:Fiori di Como by Dale Chihuly at the Bellagio Hotel & Casino. in Las Vegas 2016.jpg). This work was done for the new challenge features 2022 – Septembre Abstract photography, with the software Gimp 2.10.32. Filtre/Distorsions/Kaleidoscope. (The category mandala may be improper). Best regards.--Pierre André ^(talk) 07:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--El Golli Mohamed (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious support I think this is transformative enough a use to not be a derivative work of the original sculpture and get over the threshold of originality in US copyright law to be a free image. But since no one else has commented on this I'm not confident in saying so. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Watzmann (Westseite).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2022 at 14:29:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Bavaria
Info The rarely shown westface of the Watzmann in the Berchtesgaden Alps. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aufi, aufi (scnr) ... yes, a great shot --Kritzolina (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stepro (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wilhelma - Maurisches Landhaus und Gewächshäuser 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2022 at 05:39:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically well-done, but the composition is not balanced: there is just too much visual weight on the right. The converging lines meet at a point that splits the vertical plane approximately 9:1, which is a bit too much. Also, it seems like the projection is not quite rectilinear, making the center-left look a bit weird. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Definitely a QI, but generally, I just find the composition a little busy. I also think that lawn at the lower left could be sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand the objections about the composition, but from my visits to the Wilhelma I remember that it is quite difficult to get a satisfying composition of a larger view there because of the limited space, therefore I really appreciate this photo. --Aristeas (talk)
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juniperus communis fruits - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2022 at 14:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Cupressaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very often you manage to find gorgeous light around your subjects. And once again the level de detail is spectacular -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -- IamMM (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was done in a studio or in a natural environment? --Wilfredor (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment photo was taken in natural light and environment. -- Ivar (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow --Wilfredor (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pan Dulce sweet bread 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2022 at 20:16:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink#Sweet food
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WB is a little off, overshifted towards red IMO, and apart from that too much of the image is noisy and unsharp. Still makes me want to take a bite, though. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is nothing special for FP nomination here, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 07:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Not an extremely great composition to me, either, though the general idea is good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Templo de Ramsés II, Abu Simbel, Egipto, 2022-04-02, DD 03.jpg, featured[edit]

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

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Egypt
Info Temple of Ramses II, Abu Simbel, Egypt. The Great Temple at Abu Simbel, which took about twenty years to build, was completed around year 24 of the reign of Ramesses the Great (which corresponds to 1265 BC). It was dedicated to the gods Amun, Ra-Horakhty, and Ptah, as well as to the deified Ramesses himself. It is generally considered the grandest and most beautiful of the temples commissioned during the reign of Ramesses II, and one of the most beautiful in Egypt. The single entrance is flanked by four colossal, 20 m (66 ft) statues, each representing Ramesses II seated on a throne and wearing the double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt. The statue to the immediate left of the entrance was damaged in an earthquake, causing the head and torso to fall away; these fallen pieces were not restored to the statue during the relocation but placed at the statue's feet in the positions originally found. c/u/n by me, Poco a poco (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support How did you manage to get this without any tourist? Yann (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I opted for a private tour. I could move quickly and without a group around me Poco a poco (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Milseburg (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Barrel distortion (sees the face in the image on the right compared to the one on the left) also noise in the sky maybe because sharpening filter? --Wilfredor (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will upload a new version with a noise reduction of the sky in a few days (I'm traveling right now). Regarding the barrel distortion I'm not sure about that. That's always corrected by default by Lr with usually good results. Poco a poco (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The perspective looks natural to me, and the noise in the sky is mild, in my opinion. What's more important to me is that this photo captures the monumentality of the motif. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Isiwal (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you for this impressive, tourist-less photo! --Aristeas (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What would i do here, photoshop that light above, and left side crop or clone, that wooden door, just dont go inside of Old Egypt. --Mile (talk) 07:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I couldn't make it earlier, but will make those improvements tonight, Mile, thanks for your feedback. --Poco a poco (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mile: Done Poco a poco (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better now. --Mile (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:সিরিয়ার দেবশিশু ০১.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2022 at 12:06:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others
Info created by Meghmollar2017 - uploaded by Meghmollar2017 - nominated by Wasiul Bahar

-- Wasiul Bahar (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a derivative work, who is the author of the graffiti? --Wilfredor (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Good graffiti, a QI to me and possibly a VI in the right scope, but aside from Wilfredor's copyright concerns, a good but not extraordinary photo to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending resolution, if any, of the copyright issue. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Auguste François-Marie Gorguet - poster for the première performance of Édouard Lalo's Le roi d'Ys (1888).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2022 at 16:54:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by Auguste François-Marie Gorguet - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezarateesteban 23:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Raccoon in Central Park (35264).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2022 at 17:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Procyonidae_(Raccoons_and_Allies)
Info I was surprised to see we only have one FP of the entire Procyonidae family. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Can't tell this is Central Park. But ... better than a cliché image of one scarfing from an overturned trash can. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's part of what makes the Ramble one of my favorite spots in NYC: if it weren't for the city sounds and the common understanding that you really shouldn't go there at night, you could forget you're in the city. Also, I definitely would've nominated this guy in Prospect Park if it were a bit sharper. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- KTC (talk) 21:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it wild ? I would definately crop those leafs on right side, they pay attention. --Mile (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The raccoons in New York City parks like Central Park and Riverside Park range in how relaxed they are around people, but they are definitely wild and not anything close to pets. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great capture, interesting light -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile Morin -- IamMM (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Procyonidae_(Raccoons_and_Allies)

Elizabeth II Lying-in-State[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2022 at 21:30:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Wide frame showing mourners going past on either sides
Close in on the coffin on the catafalque
Wide angle long exposure showing movements of the mourners and stillness of the guards

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1990-now
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by KTC. I'm not sure whether this is suitable as a set, but ultimately decided to go for it and see what everyone thinks -- KTC (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KTC (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this is a set. I also think that the 3rd picture is an interesting QI but not an FP. I would consider voting for both of the other photos, if they are nominated separately. I think the composition of the second is my favorite, but a bit less noise and more sharpness might be needed for it to be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An outstanding occasion, but the candidates are not. Image selection and crop seem any. Very up to date. Possibly VI. We do not know which uploads will follow on this topic.--Milseburg (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. The actual lying-in-state (as opposed to funeral procession etc.) inside Westminster Hall could only have been photographed specifically with accreditation for doing so, handheld with no tripod etc. It is unlikely any other media organisations are planning on releasing it under a free licence, though I would be very presently suprised if they do. Daytime images would had have less noise obviously, but alas the accreditation was for middle of the night. -- KTC (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
with no tripod > then how did you shoot the 3rd pic of the set? Camera lied on a wall? - Benh (talk) 07:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We were on a raised platform on the back / side of the hall. My arms / camera was rested on the balcony edge and tried to hold still. -- KTC (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought photos were not allowed. Did you get authorisation? - Benh (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ah just saw your answer above mine. - Benh (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you very much for these valuable photos, KTC! However like Ikan I doubt that they form a valid set according to the rather strict set rules, sorry. But I would be happy to vote for these photos if nominated separately; personally I prefer the 1st one. --Aristeas (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valuable documents but not FPs in my view. Picture 3 has distracting ghosts, and picture 2 is too busy with a cluttered composition including feet cut off -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I sometimes wonders if people on here remember sometimes the people is part of the whole point of the picture. It's not just sterile picture of a building / interior. And the "distracting ghosts" is very much a stylistic choice to highlight movement of the public filing past. Oh well, guess we to have to disagree on this. -- KTC (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination - Will come back with individual nominations in the future. Thanks -- KTC (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carte générale du globe tirée de la géographie d'El-Edrisi, milieu du XIIe s. de l'ère vulgaire - btv1b100601717.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2022 at 19:46:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps#Maps of the world
Info created by Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Šarīf Abū ʿAbd Allâh al-Idrīsī / Gallica, uploaded by Gzen92Bot, nominated by Yann (talk)
Info Tabula Rogeriana, general map of the globe taken from the geography of El-Edrisi, mid-12th century.
Support Old rare document, huge resolution. Also map from another source than Western Europe. Note: the north is at the bottom. -- Yann (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--El Golli Mohamed (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm able to view this at full screen but no bigger. Any advice? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Right. I created a reduced version, which can be displayed online. Yann (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you. It's interesting that this period is the "Vulgar Era" to the French but was in the latter part of the Golden Age of Islamic Civilization. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Yann. --Aristeas (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain because the large-image viewer is not displaying this. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: This is a software technical limitation. The file can be viewed very well after downloading it. This is not related in any way to the quality or the value of the file. Yann (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting map. ~~I think the world map category should be added.~~ It is not clear at first glance, but in the highest resolution the names of the lands and seas written in very fine red lines can be read. It is unlikely that it is due to the size of the file, because larger images were displayed by the viewer so maybe exporting the original version in Photoshop and re-uploading will solve the file display problem. -- IamMM (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO such a huge resolution is not meant to be displayed online, but it is useful for research, cropping, etc. Yann (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per other supporters. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de Santa María, Murcia, España, 2022-07-12, DD 33-35 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2022 at 08:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Spain
Info Cathedral Church of Saint Mary, Murcia, Spain. The Christian king Jaime I the Conqueror conquered the city during the Mudéjar revolt of 1264–66. Jaime I took the Great Mosque or Aljamía to consecrate it to the Virgin Mary; a custom he put in place when he conquered any settlement. However, it was not until the 14th century that construction of the cathedral would begin. The interior is largely Gothic in style and the heart and the entrails of King Alfonso X the Wise are buried under the main altar of the cathedral. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little bit soft in the corners, but overall very good quality and a very impressive and atmospheric photo. --Aristeas (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. Daniel Case (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Verkleinert Orgelempore Dorfkirche Hohen Neuendorf.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2022 at 13:29:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded by Wieggy - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question It is not a particularly showy church, but speaking of technical details that could be better, the railing seems to cover a large part of the ground floor and almost reaches the altar, also the image looks very yellowish, it would be good to evaluate the white balance, it is this is correct?. Thank you --Wilfredor (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support What an extreme shot! Stitched from 170 pictures! WB looks okay for me, maybe a bit yellowish but not that much. -- Wolf im Wald 05:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wolf. --Aristeas (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mile (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Balap Karung.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2022 at 09:00:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Others
Info created & uploaded by Irsam Soetarto - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support small, but what a great action shot! --El Grafo (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, but very small, and was it downsampled? Per w:Nikon D7000, the maximum resolution of the camera used for this photo is 4,928 × 3,264 pixels. 2,000 × 1,325 pixels seems like half the size of a crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I feel like I have to oppose unless a full-sized version is uploaded or perhaps an explanation is given for why the photo is so small (though an explanation would not guarantee support from me). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per El Grafo --Kritzolina (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Yann (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see it unlikely that the author will come here to upload a larger version --Wilfredor (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great, it’s just a pity that the file is so small. --Aristeas (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas.--Ermell (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pic! --Stepro (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FrankfurtOder asv2022-07 img24 Hauptpost.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2022 at 12:02:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Doors
Info Double portal of Hauptpost Frankfurt (Oder), the Main Post Office of Frankfurt (Oder), all by me --A.Savin 12:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 14:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting example of historicist architecture, nice with the old blue postbox in the centre. --Aristeas (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just entrance into post office building and bicycle. Nothing extra for FP, IHMO. -- Karelj (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Karelj --Wilfredor (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ganesh Agman.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2022 at 06:51:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info created by Swapnilgorivale - uploaded by Swapnilgorivale - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the gallery - I actually thought it should go under event, but as this is a people gallery and the idol is not a person, I don't think this fits. But Objects/other also seems not ideal to me. Does anyone know a better place? Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Think about where one would look for an image like this: I'd say events would be OK, traditions would fit best. This is a picture about people doing something, even if the people themselves only take up a small part of the frame. El Grafo (talk) 07:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Advice taken, thanks! --Kritzolina (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very interesting, but too much room on top? Also, it could help to describe the projectiles causing light tracks. Not everyone looking at the photo is familiar with this holiday and its traditions. I'm not. I'm definitely aware of Ganesh/Ganesha, but when I was in Malaysia, the Hindu holidays I was aware of were Deepavali (also called Diwali) and Thaipusam. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The scene seems to be very tight with several people cut off below and with a lot of space above (it should have been the other way around), this is just my humble opinion --Wilfredor (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that a more generous crop below and less above would have been better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light comes from behind. Picture taken against the sun, noticeable from the highlights. Hence the bland colors. Also the tight crop at the bottom, cutting two heads, one below and one at the right, is quite unfortunate. Too much empty space at the top, and the distracting branches make for a busy composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really interesting picture, but I think the critics are right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Just doesn't feel quite there to me. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite described shortcomings, I like the photo – the scenery is impressive to me. -- Radomianin (talk) 20:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive atmosphere of image, per above. -- Karelj (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, bland colours, tight crop, too much room on the top, and many of the people have beeen cut off. Not even a QI or a VI for me, sorry. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grand Canyon North Rim.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2022 at 23:19:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/United_States#Arizona
Info View from North Rim near Bright Angel Point‎ into Grand Canyon. All by me. -- Wolf im Wald 23:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 23:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Chromatic aberration, color noise (sky) and perspective distortion in the hills in the background. A CPL filter would also have improved the sky and background --Wilfredor (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Wilfredor and Sea Cow: I fixed distortion & noise and uploaded a new version. Thanks for your review! -- Wolf im Wald 17:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improve it. Is the horizon actually tilted or was the shot tilted? --Wilfredor (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the shot tilted a bit to the right and I fixed it now. -- Wolf im Wald 01:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort you put into trying to fix this. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per the issues defined by Wilfredor, as well as the people in the foreground, which I find rather distracting. Sea Cow (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an FP to me now with the noise reduction and straightening, and I like the people, who indicate the scale. Where was the CA? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tech issues aside, and I don't mind the people, but ... this is a subject which can be and has been captured in much more spectacular direct sunlight. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tirupati Skating World Record.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2022 at 05:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Individual_sports
Info created by Paavans - uploaded by Paavans - nominated by JopkeB -- JopkeB (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JopkeB (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting scene, but unfortunately the person is out of focus. Wolf im Wald 21:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wolf. Not sharp enough to be great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without even getting to the sharpness, the upper background is distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impressing performance, but not very detailed at full resolution unfortunately -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Château Frontenac at night, Quebec City, Canada 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2022 at 15:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Canada
Info All by -- Wilfredor (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice. Are you all good with the perspective? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question, yes, 105mm has a small amount of barrel distortion, however, I applied lens correction which corrects chromatic aberration and lens distortions. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice ‘cooperation’ of the colours of the evening sky with the colours of the artificial lighting. The verticals are slightly leaning in, but IMHO this is OK (and looks natural) here because we are obviously looking upwards. --Aristeas (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's deserving, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would say Ikan had some good objections. PD is not same as leaning, i think its a bit clockwise, otherwise IQ is good. Maybe tight crop above, or not. --Mile (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)--Mile (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback I used the central columns as a reference to verify that it was not tilted because the poles on the right down are naturally tilted and not due to a perspective error. Feel free to correct it, I am afraid that by making some alteration it will end up distorting the natural perspective --Wilfredor (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose I don't know ... it's a beautiful subject, but something about the geometry looks off to me. And wrt to the lighting I'll have to disagree with Aristeas: The wonderful, smooth, pastel-colored gradient of the sky and the in-your-face saturated spotlights at the top do not harmonize at all for me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next time I will talk to the castle administration so that they buy less saturated lights XD --Wilfredor (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe have the switch them on a bit later - I'm sure they look great against a darker sky ;-) El Grafo (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Stepro (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 08:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Virtual-Pano (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kleiner Perlmutterfalter gefroren.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2022 at 12:44:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)
Info created and uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was in a natural enviroment or a studio? --Wilfredor (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilfredor: According to camera location and categories, taken in nature. -- IamMM (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. -- -donald- (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive -- Wolf im Wald 21:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Nymphalidae (Brush-footed Butterflies)

File:Australian owlet-nightjar A22I9928.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2022 at 15:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Aegothelidae_(Owlet-nightjars)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 15:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nocturnal and very small bird. Great shot. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Biser Todorov (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute --Schnobby (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very small bird that sharpens and good shot! Maanshen (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC){s[reply]
Support John Samuel (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Aegothelidae_(Owlet-nightjars)

File:Hanging Painting (for Outdoor Rite) of Nosana Buddha at Sinwonsa temple in Gongju, Korea.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2022 at 16:27:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Religion#Buddhism
Info created by Eung'yeol(응열; 應悅), Hakjeon(학전; 學全), Ilcheuk(일측; 一測), Seokneung(석능; 釋能) - uploaded by Sadopaul - nominated by Sadopaul -- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 16:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Extraordinarily grand size, National treasure.-- — Sadopaul 💬 📁 16:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can feel its size in this photo — Sadopaul 💬 📁 16:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This link is broken. Yann (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? — Sadopaul 💬 📁 03:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one works. Yann (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that link is still alive to me. — Sadopaul 💬 📁 03:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first one gives me "Referral Denied". Yann (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detailed, interesting painting. -- Radomianin (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. --Aristeas (talk) 07:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original (uncropped) version is better in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hrh Princess Elizabeth in the Auxiliary Territorial Service, April 1945 TR2832.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2022 at 04:16:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created by Ministry of Information - restored and uploaded by Angerey - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 08:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unbelievable! The world was already colourful in 1945? --Granada (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Turned so a few years before: [1] --Kreuz schnabel 12:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Forget about who the subject is for a minute: This is a really awkward composition. The vehicle facing out of the frame like that with lots of dead space behind, her facing the opposite direction looking at something more interesting. This almost feels like a "behind the scenes" shot of her doing a photoshoot while there's another photographer standing somewhere on the left taking the real portrait. Or maybe it was supposed to be cropped - do we know if this was scanned from a print or a negative? --El Grafo (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valued yes, FP not so. Even for that day there are much better shots. --Mile (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose VI but no FP in any way. --Milseburg (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This is The Queen, so we have to FP pictures where she appears. No. The image hasn't the wow expected for FP. Per others for VI. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 07:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, I would have supported this photo if the woman in it was an American WACS member. What I see is a well-lit color photo of a female World War II enlistee in uniform standing in front of her medical services truck. I think that would be a good and interesting enough historical photo to feature if this were not a well-known enlistee, and the fact that it's Elizabeth is just an additional bit of history to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ikan and El Grafo. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But I support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not FP --Lupe (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight at the bottom, in my view. Need more space under the feet -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per El Grafo and Basile. Poor framing → strange composition, plus model looking away from camera. --Kreuz schnabel 12:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight on the bottom. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Don't think there's much point keeping this running. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karisalmi Bridge 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2022 at 09:55:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#Finland
Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. Karinsalmi Bridge is a suspension bridge over Päijänne in Pulkkilanharju, Asikkala, Finland. The 175 meters long bridge was built in 1969 and it carries the regional road 314. The bridge was photographed during a beautiful spring evening when the lake Päijänne was still melting from its winter ice cover. —kallerna (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 09:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition and delicate colours thanks to the evening light. I like the contrast between the dynamic composition and the tranquil mood. --Aristeas (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not often we see deck-level views of bridges from aside the deck rather than portal-to-portal. This works. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special light -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I really like the composition, but IMO DoF should be better. --XRay 💬 07:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flamants rose lac de Tunis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2022 at 12:21:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phoenicopteridae (Flamingos)
Info Greater Flamingos at Tunis south lake (Phoenicopterus roseus) created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by El Golli Mohamed --El Golli Mohamed (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 12:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only the leftmost bird is relatively sharp, and I don't love the gray light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link improved. Your friendly gallery link service ;–), --Aristeas (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is too tight at the bottom in my view. We need some margins around the birds in the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Noisy and unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cala Tonnarella dell'Uzzo2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2022 at 05:14:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Sicily
Info: to avoid being excommunicated, here is something more traditional; all by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice spot, but not sharp enough to be superb, IMO, distracting crop that bisects some nice plants, and I don't like the radio tower (or whatever that is) much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan re the sharpness, and I also think the beach highlight could stand to be suppressed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan and Daniel. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe there’s just too much within the frame? Crop suggestion added. --Kreuz schnabel 22:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:American croc in Mexico.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2022 at 20:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Crocodylidae (Crocodiles)
Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Strong vignetting, chromatic aberration, out of focus, and insufficient depth of field. It's also missing essential information on its description page like a location. --Wilfredor (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link improved. Your friendly gallery link service ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The artificial vignetting ruins it in my view. And it looks underexposed. Also per Wilfredor. Zoo? Wildlife? Location information missing in the description page -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile, but that's just getting started. Visible CA everywhere when you get further from the center. Croc looks sort of unreal. And the composition is awkward. Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 21:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:2022-07-24 Motorsport, IDM, 87. Internationales Schleizer Dreieckrennen 1DX 3075 by Stepro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2022 at 22:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Motorsports
Info motor sports, IDM, 87. Internationales Schleizer Dreieckrennen: Markus Reiterberger (GER); IDM Superbike 1000; created, uploaded and nominated by Stepro
Support -- Stepro (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, and a good capture, but it's hard to see the competitor's head, so I find the photo has a strange effect on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted present the unusual side of a motorcycle racing thru a corner, instead of the common pictures of the other side. Stepro (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. And you did. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful weak oppose "I wanted [to] present the unusual side of a motorcycle racing thru a corner". And you did. However ... given that the rider's head is, as Ikan notes, nearly invisible as a result, it would have been better to have a less distracting background. I also think the image seems slightly overexposed ... yes, I know you can't be too choosy with shutter speeds when taking this sort of picture, but here if it were possible to go down to something a little shorter, or do something in post, that would have helped.
This is, make no mistake, deservedly a QI. But it doesn't make it as an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Daniel and Ikan make good points, but I can't really support unless I see the rider's head. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puesto de frutos en el Zoco -- 2014 -- Marrakech, Marruecos.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2022 at 11:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Morocco
Info created & uploaded by Alurín - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to comment on the size, but looking in the file history I see it was downsized. The larger version looks like it's probably salvageable, though? Might need a slight horizontal correction, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the guidelines: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." Only 2,100 × 1,391 pixels: too small. The original is larger but "blurry", as written by the uploader. See file history -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose resolution too low -- Wolf im Wald 03:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from the technical issues, I just find this too busy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larus michahellis juvenile with mask.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2022 at 06:26:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Larus
Info created by Biso - uploaded by Biso - nominated by Biso -- Biser Todorov (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biser Todorov (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality. Tomer T (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link improved (to allow to learn by example). Your friendly gallery link service ;–), --Aristeas (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice capture, but per Tomer T, not great quality such that it would be one of the greatest photos on the site, which is what featured pictures are supposed to be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The artificial vignetting is too much -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, hopelessly oversharpened. --Kreuz schnabel 12:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose, love the idea of animals taking COVID precautions , love that it's from Bulgaria, but the waves are too distracting a background here even without going into the quality issues. Daniel Case (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barite - Cerro Warihuyn, Miraflores, Huamalies, Huanuco, Peru.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2022 at 08:52:04 (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) 08:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Biser Todorov (talk) 10:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and a request: could you make clear in your file description or with arrows what the primarily clear crystals are, as opposed to the sort of rose-colored ones? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The shadow bothers me. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 16:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fiori di Como by Dale Chihuly at the Bellagio Hotel & Casino. in Las Vegas 2016.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2022 at 16:08:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Glass ceilings and skylights
Info all by Pierre André Leclercq . -- Pierre André ^(talk) 16:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. --Pierre André ^(talk) 16:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's unclear what's on the bottom left; either way, even if I do find out, it's way too dark. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your advice, best regards Pierre André ^(talk) 14:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golubac Fortress (град Голубац).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2022 at 10:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications#Serbia
Info Golubac Fortress by Danube river. My shot. -- Mile (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 10:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the compact view and the light. But I'm not happy about the detail level. There are blurry areas and sharp areas all over the picture. I think several single images of the stitching are not sharp. Plants are a big problem because they move in the wind. Maybe this can be improved with some modifications in the stitching software (masking). The same applies to the wind turbine on the left. I marked some critical areas in the image notes. -- Wolf im Wald 05:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the image overall (I might have cropped some of the bottom out) but per Wolf something went way wrong in the processing. The castle walls and nearby vegetation look ... well, oversharpened is a starting point but I'd say it's more like unnatural. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing is wrong with processing, Hi-res dont work as one shot, so it take some time, due to strong wind here is the result. Flags were edited from other single shot photo. Concetrate on the Castle. --Mile (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)--Mile (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry – overall this is a nice photo, of course, but when I view it in full size the castle walls, plants etc. look extremely oversharpened and completely articificial. Could you just reduce the sharpening? IMHO this would make it look much more natural. --Aristeas (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Maybe single shot would work. --Mile (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Templo de Nefertari, Abu Simbel, Egipto, 2022-04-02, DD 153.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2022 at 20:40:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Egypt
Info Temple of Nefertari, Abu Simbel, Egypt. The temple, also called Small Temple of Abu Simbel, was built about 100 m (330 ft) northeast of the temple of Ramesses II and was dedicated to the goddess Hathor and Ramesses II's chief consort, Nefertari. This was in fact the second time in ancient Egyptian history that a temple was dedicated to a queen. The first time, Akhenaten dedicated a temple to his great royal wife, Nefertiti. The rock-cut facade is decorated with two groups of colossi that are separated by the large gateway. The statues, slightly more than 10 m (33 ft) high, are of the king and his queen. On either side of the portal are two statues of the king, wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt (south colossus) and the double crown (north colossus); these are flanked by statues of the queen. Remarkably, this is one of very few instances in Egyptian art where the statues of the king and his consort have equal size. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ very tight crop IMO -- Wolf im Wald 01:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support now okay for me Wolf im Wald 21:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sky looks quite underexposed, maybe due to harsh light towards the temple. Could be possible to fix? —kallerna (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will look into that this evening (will try to gain some more crop and the sky exposure) Poco a poco (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—kallerna: I've increased the luminance of the sky a bit without really feeling comfortable with the edit (premiere), I hope you like it better now. I also offer a bit more of crop now, Wolf im Wald Poco a poco (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks improved to me. What are you uncomfortable with? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: Well, changing the luminosity of a part of the picture is something I haven't done before, it doesn't really feel right. I had this kind of discussion with the skies in the Atacama desert, they were also darker Poco a poco (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So increase the darkness, but what I liked was that you eliminated the color noise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if it helps, I find it normal to have very dark sky in "high azimutal" parts of the sky. Also, given the latitude and the intense light, there's probably a strong contrast between the temple and the sky. Another reason for the latter rendering dark. But these are just personal observations. - Benh (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is kind of stock, but color, detail and light make up for it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 20:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Satdeep Gill (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rue des Marchands in Colmar 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2022 at 13:51:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's a little bit of purple CA near a TV antenna (I think that is) on the right, but the main issue to me is that this scene with dull gray skies is just not compelling. Your other nominee is much more appealing to me and I might vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull light and gray sky -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hyacinth Macaw (Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus), Parque Estadual Encontro das Águas Thomas-Fuhrmann 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2022 at 08:33:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Psittacidae (True Parrots)
Info created & uploaded by Snowmanstudios - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 13:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Their wings form elegant, dynamic curves; these curves would even work as as abstract composition. --Aristeas (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image looks too chaotic IHMO. The bird in lower part is diplayed only parly (the head cannot be seen and so on). Are these birds fighting each other or is this preparation for sexual act? -- Karelj (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Don't we have another FP of this species (common enough in captivity but not too hard to photograph in the wild, IIRC)? I know that's not a reason to oppose by itself but I seem to recall liking the other one more. While Aristeas has a point about the combined curve of the wings, it is not to me striking and dynamic enough to offset the issues Karelj points to. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maanshen (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support John Samuel (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Psittacidae (True Parrots)

File:Robert Jacob Hamerton - Poster for A Sensation Novel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2022 at 23:58:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera
Info created by Robert Jacob Hamerton - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Satdeep Gill (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maanshen (talk) 13:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera

File:Good Friday Procession.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2022 at 19:33:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info created by Bellina 09 - uploaded by Bellina 09 - nominated by Kritzolina -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kritzolina (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A moving photo I have on my list of favorites. Many thanks for the nomination, Kritzolina. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, good composition. --Yann (talk) 07:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent use of small DoF for subject separation while still putting the subject nicely in context. Thank you very much, Kritzolina, for the nomination; this photo was one of my personal favourites from Wiki Loves Folklore 2022. --Aristeas (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of those "shouldn't work but it does" images. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Clothes are oversharpened IMO. Besides the picture has a low detail level on the skin/beard regarding the resolution of only 7MP. -- Wolf im Wald 21:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Wolf im Wald. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is true that this image has technical problems but the expression on the actor's face and the scene make me think that it deserves to be FP --Wilfredor (talk) 12:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tiled roof of San Nicolò l'Arena1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2022 at 04:57:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural_elements#Other
Info: just as you thought you'd seen the last of the tiled roof... This version has less dominating shadows compared to the previous nomination. -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special here. There are not significative change with the first version. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Peulle (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadows have been lifted in post-process, but the light is still harsh from the original shot. That's not golden hour, or an exceptional moment of the day. Also per the consensus which emerged from the previous nomination: nothing special, in my view. -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I did the previous nomination. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but what's so unusually remarkable about these rather ordinarly-looking tiles? --SHB2000 (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. No wow on my side. Just an ordinary roof in ordinary light. --Kreuz schnabel 08:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support as for the first version. (Personally I liked the first version even better – such simple subjects are fine with high contrast and deep shadows.) @The Cosmonaut: Please don’t despair. Such minimalist subjects/motifs are always a matter of taste, and while this one does not get a majority here, another one may work well. So please keep looking for (and uploading) such minimalist photos, some people really appreciate your work :–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, Aristeas, this is much appreciated! --The Cosmonaut (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice abstract/minimalist photo that deserves the star for me Cmao20 (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darß 2021 - Weststrand 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2022 at 04:17:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery:Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Info Western coast of the Darß with the Darß Forest in the Western Pomerania Lagoon Area National Park. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 04:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose feels like a bit ordinary view to be FP. Tomer T (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The poor lighting and the ordinary beach unfortunately prevent me from supporting. It's a nice view, though. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The unappealing light prevents me from appreciating the landscape. The sky and the sand of the beach are not special enough -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's probably too late for this nomination, but I think I'd like a crop closer to the fallen tree on the left better. I do think this landscape is interesting enough to feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the cool colours and the composition is FP-level to me. But I don't know if there is a bit of barrel distortion on the horizon, perhaps? Cmao20 (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iolanthe piano transcriptions by Ernst Perabo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2022 at 21:52:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera
Info created by George H. Walker & Co., restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Not much that can be done about text angle, as the higher text points down slightly and the lower up slightly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Entertainment#Music and Opera

File:A Balinese girl posing in a flower field.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2022 at 11:03:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely --Wilfredor (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! I like the girl's expression and the overall simplicity of the scene. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank. -- Radomianin (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support So cute -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Geez, it's hard to scroll away from this image. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank. --Aristeas (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Suggest pulling up a little more shadow detail under the hat but still an exceptional image. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank -- Wolf im Wald 04:04, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support (but agree with GRDN711 about the shadows) --El Grafo (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isojärvi Isojärven kansallispuisto 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2022 at 09:48:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Finland
Info Created, uploaded and nominated by me. Aerial view of Lake Isojärvi at Isojärvi National Park during a humid summer afternoon. I like the light and shadows with the cloudy sky - and a glimpse of the blue sky mirrored from the lake. —kallerna (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Finland, or at least what I imagine it to look like because I've never been there, in one shot. I like that there's that one solitary boater in the narrows in the lower lake. I hope they're enjoying this natural experience as much as I imagine them to be, as I might in their position. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image, definitely QI; but not enought wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, the bluish tint on the distant view prevent the image to be very special. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per GRDN711 and Christian -- Wolf im Wald 21:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the leading lines and I enjoy looking at this photo overall but idk whether the technical quality (noise in the shadows, blown highlights in the clouds) is quite good enough seeing the motif for me is good but not outstanding Cmao20 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gloripallium pallium (Royal Cloak Scallop), shell, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2022 at 06:02:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Right valve
Left valve

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Shells#Family : Pectinidae
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --SHB2000 (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--XRay 💬 16:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Drow male (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the set. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 04:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Micha (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cigogne blanche Ichkeul NP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2022 at 12:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Ciconiidae (Storks)
Info White Stork (Cicogna cicogna) at Ichkeul national park created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by El Golli Mohamed --El Golli Mohamed (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- El Golli Mohamed (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know ... WB looks a little off, and frankly it doesn't (ahem) stand out from our many other pictures of birds. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I quite like the contrast. --SHB2000 (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Dull light and low level of details -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredor (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor contrast and sharpness. -- Karelj (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good high resolution bird pic but could do with a bit of sharpening. Cmao20 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 20:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liège - palais des princes-évêques - armoiries de Georges-Louis de Berghes - 2021-09-16 - 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2022 at 14:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Reliefs
Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by -- H₂O^(talk) 14:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. -- H₂O^(talk) 14:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice motif. Is a slight increase in sharpness possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose not very sharp, imo. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light. And I'm missing something special here to consider this image as one of our best in the site -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --H₂O^(talk) 17:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dampremy - Soumonces 2014 - 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2022 at 14:58:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People/Portrait#Mixed
Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by -- H₂O^(talk) 14:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. -- H₂O^(talk) 14:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little bit too dark? What do you think? IMO sharpness could be better too. --XRay 💬 07:29, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop too tight. --SHB2000 (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop, too dark, busy background, centered faces (too much space on top). --Kreuz schnabel 12:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuz. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Wolf im Wald 03:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --H₂O^(talk) 17:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rua Conselheiro Lopes da Silva in Valenca (1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2022 at 13:49:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Portugal
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the atmosphere! --SHB2000 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SHB2000. I wonder whether it could/should a bit darker, given the date and time; making the photo darker would also allow to add a little bit more contrast to it. --Aristeas (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that's what I call street photography! Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but is that a dust spot around the middle of the top margin? It looks like it is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dust spot removed, Tournasol7 (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like photos of urban streets without cars. --A.Savin 13:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view. Unfortunately, there's a ghost at the end of the street. -- Wolf im Wald 04:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Complex but rewarding composition that takes time to appreciate Cmao20 (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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