Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Featured picture candidates)
Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

Alemannisch | asturianu | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | galego | हिन्दी | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | молдовеняскэ | norsk bokmål | português | polski | română | русский | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | українська | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Shortcut
COM:FPC
Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures.

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and current month.

For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election.

Formal things[edit]

Nominating[edit]

Guidelines for nominators[edit]

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:

  • Licensing - Images licensed with solely "GFDL" or "GFDL and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses.
  • ResolutionImages (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level.
Graphics on Commons are not only viewed on conventional computer screens. They may be used in high-resolution print versions, and the images may be cropped to focus on portions of the image. See Commons:Why we need high resolution media for more information.
  • Scans – While not official policy, Help:Scanning provides advice on the preparation of various types of images that may be useful.
  • General quality – pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality.
  • Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
    • For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.
    • For historic images, acceptable manipulations might include digitally fixing rips, removal of stains, cleanup of dirt, and, for mass-produced artworks such as engravings, removal of flaws inherent to the particular reproduction, such as over-inking. Careful colour adjustments may be used to bring out the original work from the signs of ageing, though care should be taken to restore a natural appearance. The original artistic intent should be considered when deciding whether it is appropriate to make a change. Edits to historic material should be documented in detail within the file description, and an unedited version should be uploaded and cross linked for comparison.
  • Valueour main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that:
    • almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others,
    • night-shots are pretty but normally more details can be shown on pictures taken at daytime,
    • beautiful does not always mean valuable.


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject.

Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable.

Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution. For instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself.

Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well.

Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy.
  • Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are nonetheless wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject.
  • Of high illustrative merit: Works that illustrate or help explain notable subjects, for instance, illustrations of books, scientific subjects, or technical processes. The amount of artistic merit required for these will vary by subject, but, for instance, an illustration that makes the working of a complicated piece of machinery very clear need not be notable as a piece of artwork as well, whereas an illustration for a book might well be expected to reach much higher artistic standards.

Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced."

Photographs

On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.

  • Focus – every important object in the picture should normally be sharp.
  • Exposure refers to the shutter diaphragm combination that renders an image with a tonal curve that ideally is able to represent in acceptable detail shadows and highlights within the image. This is called latitude. Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Digital cameras (or images) have a narrower latitude than film. Lack of shadow detail is not necessarily a negative characteristic. In fact, it can be part of the desired effect. Burned highlights in large areas are a distracting element.
  • Composition refers to the arrangement of the elements within the image. The "Rule of Thirds" is a good guideline for composition and is an inheritance from the painting school. The idea is to divide the image with two imaginary horizontal and two vertical lines, thus dividing the image into thirds horizontally and vertically. Centering the subject is often less interesting than placing the subject in one of the "interest points", the 4 intersection between these horizontal and vertical lines intersect. Horizons should almost never be placed in the middle, where they "cut" the image in half. The upper or lower horizontal line is often a good choice. The main idea is to use space to create a dynamic image.
    • Foreground and background – foreground and background objects may be distracting. You should check that something in front of the subject doesn't hide important elements and that something in background doesn't spoil the composition (for example that the streetlight doesn't "stand" on someone's head).
  • Movement control refers to the manner in which motion is represented in the image. Motion can be frozen or blurred. Neither one is better than the other. It is the intention of representation. Movement is relative within the objects of the image. For example, photographing a race car that appears frozen in relation to the background does not give us a sense of speed or motion, so technique dictates to represent the car in a frozen manner but with a blurred background, thus creating the sense of motion, this is called "panning". On the other hand, representing a basketball player in a high jump frozen in relation to everything else, due to the "unnatural" nature of the pose would be a good photograph.
  • Depth of field (DOF) refers to the area in focus in front of and beyond main subject. Depth of field is chosen according to the specific needs of every picture. Large or small DOF can either way add or subtract to the quality of the image. Low depth of field can be used to bring attention to the main subject, separating it from the general environment. High depth of field can be used to emphasize space. Short focal length lenses (wide angles) yield large DOF, and vice versa, long focal lenses (telephotos) have shallow DOF. Small apertures yield large DOF and conversely, large apertures yield shallow DOF.

On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.

  • Shape refers to the contour of the main subjects.
  • Volume refers to the three dimensional quality of the object. This is accomplished using side light. Contrary to general belief, front lighting is not the best light. It tends to flatten subject. Best light of day is early morning or late afternoon.
  • Colour is important. Over saturated colours are not good.
  • Texture refers to the quality of the surface of the subject. It is enhanced by side lighting… it is the "feel" to the touch.
  • Perspective refers to the "angle" accompanied by lines that disappear into a vanishing point that may or may not be inside the image.
  • Balance refers to the arrangement of subjects within the image that can either give equal weight or appear to be heavier on one side.
  • Proportion refers to the relation of size of objects in picture. Generally, we tend to represent small objects small in relation to others, but a good technique is to represent small objects large contrary to natural size relationship. For example, a small flower is given preponderance over a large mountain…. This is called inversion of scales.
Not all elements must be present. Some photographs can be judged on individual characteristics, that is, an image can be about color or texture, or colour AND texture, etc.
  • Noise refers to unwanted corruption of colour brightness and quality and can be caused by underexposure. It is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition.
  • Symbolic meaning or relevance … Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph.
Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image, not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations …

You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating.

Video and audio

Set nominations

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:

  • Faithful digital reproductions of works notable in their own right, which the original author clearly intended to be viewed as a set. Examples: pages in a pamphlet, crops (puzzle pieces) of a prohibitively large scan, a pair of pendant paintings. Not acceptable: Arbitrary selection of sample works by an artist.
  • A sequence of images showing the passage of time. They could depict frames of a moving/changing object or a static object during different times of day or different seasons. Examples: diagrams illustrating a process, steps of a dance, metamorphosis of an insect, maps/drawings/photos of the same subject over the years (frame of view should be more or less the same).
  • A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints, preferably taken under the same lighting conditions when possible. Examples: Exterior and interior of a building, different facades of a building, different interior views, obverse and inverse of a banknote/coin. Not acceptable: A selection of different rooms in a skyscraper, the facade of a church plus an organ, any images of fundamentally different scopes.
  • A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object. Examples: Male and female versions of an animal (preferably in the same setting), all known species of a genus. Not acceptable: A few breeds of cats (unless they share a defining characteristic and represent all possible examples of that).

Adding a new nomination[edit]

If you believe that you have found or created an image that could be considered valuable, with appropriate image description and licensing, then do the following.

Step 1: copy the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg. Then click on the "create new nomination" button.

All single files:

For renominations, simply add /2 after the filename. For example, Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foo.jpg/2



Step 2: follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save that page.

Step 3: manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list: Click here, and add the following line to the TOP of the nominations list:

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Your image filename.jpg}}

Recommended: Please add a category from the list at COM:FP.

Optional: if you are not the creator of the image, please notify him/her using {{subst:FPC-notice|Your image filename.jpg}} -- ~~~~.

Voting[edit]

Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed.

You may use following templates:

  • {{Support}} (Symbol support vote.svg Support),
  • {{Oppose}} (Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose),
  • {{Neutral}} (Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral),
  • {{Comment}} (Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment),
  • {{Info}} (Pictogram voting info.svg Info),
  • {{Question}} (Pictogram voting question.svg Question),
  • {{Request}} (Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request).

You may indicate that the image has no chance of success with the template {{FPX|reason - ~~~~}}, where reason explains why the image is clearly unacceptable as a FP. The template can only be used when there are no support votes other than the one from the nominator.

A well-written review helps participants (photographers, nominators and reviewers) improve their skills by providing insight into the strengths and weaknesses of a picture. Explain your reasoning, especially when opposing a candidate (which has been carefully selected by the author/nominator). English is the most widely understood language on Commons, but any language may be used in your review. A helpful review will often reference one or more of the criteria listed above.

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

  • No reason
  • "I don't like it" and other empty assessments
  • "You can do better" and other criticisms of the author/nominator rather than the image

Remember also to put your signature (~~~~).

Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]

Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. This is for listing an image which you believe no longer deserves to be a featured picture. For these, vote:

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It deserves to remain a featured picture
{{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It does not deserve to be a featured picture anymore.

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

Text to use Displays as Meaning
{{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Do not replace the old image with the new image as an FP.
{{Delistandreplace}} Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Replace the current FP with the proposed replacement.

If you believe that some picture no longer meets the criteria for FP, you can nominate it for delisting, copying the image name into this box, after the text already present in the box:


In the new delisting nomination page just created you should include:

  • Information on the origin of the image (creator, uploader);
  • A link to the original FP nomination (it will appear under "Links" on the image description page);
  • Your reasons for nominating the image and your username.

After that, you have to manually insert a link to the created page at the top of Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

As a courtesy, leave an informative note on the talk page(s) of the original creator, uploader(s), and nominator with a link to the delisting candidate. {{subst:FPC-notice-removal}} can be used for this purpose.

Featured picture candidate policy[edit]

General rules[edit]

  1. The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination. After the end of this period the result will be determined. Votes added on day 10 and after are not counted.
  2. Nominations by anonymous contributors are welcome
  3. Contributions to discussion by anonymous contributors are welcome
  4. Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.
  5. Nominations do not count as votes. Support must be explicitly stated.
  6. Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{withdraw}} ~~~~
  7. Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.
  8. Rules of the 5th day based on vote counts on day number 5 (day of nomination + 5)
    1. Pictures are speedy declined if they have no support (apart from the nominator).
    2. Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.)
    3. Once either speedy criterion is reached, the voting period is considered closed, and no more votes may be added.
  9. Pictures tagged {{FPX}} may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied, provided there are no support votes other than that of the nominator.
  10. Pictures tagged {{FPD}} (FP-Denied) may be removed from the list 24 hours after the tag was applied.
  11. Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. The main purpose of this measure is to contribute to a better average quality of nominations, by driving nominators/creators to choose carefully the pictures presented to the forum.

Featuring and delisting rules[edit]

A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:

  1. Appropriate license (of course)
  2. At least seven Symbol support vote.svg Support votes at the end of nine days
  3. Ratio of supporting/opposing votes at least 2/1 (a two-thirds majority); same for delist/keep votes
  4. Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support, as determined by the closer. Whenever the closer is not sure which version has consensus to be featured, he/she should attempt to contact the voters to clarify their opinions if not clear from the nomination page.

The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations.

The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that are familiar with the voting rules.

Above all, be polite[edit]

Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care.

Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken.

See also[edit]

Table of contents[edit]

List may contain works considered Not Safe for Work (nudity).

Nominators are requested, out of courtesy, to include the {{nsfw}} template with such images. Users may select the gadget in user preferences "Deferred display of images tagged with {{nsfw}} on COM:FPC" to enable the template's effect of hiding the image until selected.

Contents

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:TheWave.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2015 at 11:54:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vermillion Cliffs Wilderness
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Post.eingang, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Vermillion Cliffs National Monument - Sandstone formation called "The Wave" because of its spectacular shape and colors.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yann (talk) 11:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak supoort Wow is magnificent, but the sky… 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Judging by the shadows, the image was taken in the evening or morning (low sun), so the dark sky might be forgiven... Kleuske (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20140125062438 - Balão boituva.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2015 at 10:52:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Balloon in Boituva, São Paulo state, Brazil.

File:Nuestra Señora de las Rocas y Monasterio de San Jorge, Perast, Bahía de Kotor, Montenegro, 2014-04-19, DD 17.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2015 at 09:38:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the islets Sveti Đorđe (left) and Our Lady of the Rocks (right) off the coast of Perast in the Bay of Kotor, Montenegro. Sveti Đorđe (island of Saint George) is a natural island that hosts the Benedictine monastery of Saint George, from the 12th century, and the old graveyard for the old nobility from Perast and further from the whole Bay of Kotor. On the other side, Our Lady of the Rocks is an artificial island created by bulwark of rocks and by sinking old and seized ships loaded with rocks. The homonymous church, a Roman Catholic temple, dates from 1452.

File:Kršlenica 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2015 at 07:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nature Preserve Kršlenica

File:Kršlenica 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2015 at 07:45:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nature Preserve Kršlenica

File:Kowloon Panorama by Ryan Cheng 2010.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2015 at 12:51:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kowloon Panorama
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ryan Cheng - uploaded by Lkiller123 - nominated by Julien1978 -- Julien1978 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Julien1978 (talk) 12:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per this, one of the best banners at Wikivoyage. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small to see the detail for a panorama.(I presume downscaled to much.) --Laitche (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Plus gray bar on the top. --Laitche (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment there are stitching errors on the right side --93.144.76.191 23:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Gray bar, stitching, low vertical resolution, editing pretty exaggerated. — Julian H. 09:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Julian, also horizon not level, buildings not straight vertically. This isn't "featured Wikivoyage banners". We have some standards. -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Columba livia - 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2015 at 12:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Columba livia

File:2014 Baroña. Castro de Baroña. Porto do Son-2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2015 at 10:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hill fort of Baroña, Pre-Roman Galicia (Spain).

File:NASA Unveils Celestial Fireworks as Official Hubble 25th Anniversary Image.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2015 at 09:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

NASA Unveils Celestial Fireworks as Official Hubble 25th Anniversary Image

File:Dülmen, Viktorkirmes auf dem Overbergplatz -- 2014 -- 3738 (2).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2015 at 09:10:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Light traces of a ferris wheel, Viktorkirmes in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like the nice light pattern coming from the ferris wheel. Also the composition is imho quite pleasing. -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. Nikhil (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose light ok, but too tight crop and weak sharpness, D kuba (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't mind the top crop but a little mind the bottom crop but agree with Tuxyso. --Laitche (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks to Tuxyso for nominating the picture. (BTW: I just improved the resolution.) --XRay talk 09:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Juan Griego sunset from Fortín La Galera.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2015 at 01:45:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Juan Griego sunset from Fortín La Galera

File:Bothriechis lateralis CR.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2015 at 22:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bothriechis lateralis

File:StJohnsAshfield StainedGlass GoodShepherd-frame crop.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2015 at 10:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jesus image on church window

File:Douglas DC-3 of BOAC at Gibraltar, silhouetted by searchlights on the Rock.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2015 at 09:36:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Douglas DC-3 of BOAC at Gibraltar, silhouetted by searchlights on the Rock.jpg

File:Reflexions of a mangrove.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2015 at 00:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I don't see an overall idea in the composition. --King of ♠ 00:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KoH. Daniel Case (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per King of Hearts. --Laitche (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find the composition very good and very interesting. I really don't understand the critics above. However, on the left side of the picture there's a lot of magenta CA at the tree. I would support the nomination if this issue was fixed. --Code (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • If that very interesting means reflection and symmetry, I've realized before your comment and guess others are same... --Laitche (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't shut my mouth called a critic. --Laitche (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. --Code (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This is indeed very interesting with "reality" and reflection seamlessly blending without leaving any discernible water line. Makes my brain go nuts, which is meant in a positive way. I'd compare it to listening to one of the more obscure Zappa songs: complex music and strange lyrics (for a non-native speaker), so I have to listen to them actively and carefully multiple times for them to make sense, but after some time I usually start to like them. Most of those songs are not really danceable or radio-friendly, though, and I fear that this image may lack the FPC equivalents of these words (whatever they are) as well. --El Grafo (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC) I sincerely hope this comment makes sense to anyone but me. If not, it's obviously a side effect of looking at the image for too long ;-)
  • Yes, that's what I meant. --Code (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I like this review, the analogy. If you look up mangrove photographs, 99% will be photographs from the outside looking at the edges of mangroves. Pictures from inside a mangrove are rare, and difficult because of the visual confusion, branches, reflections, light seeping in... The idea of this photograph is precisely that, to show the confusion, the visual confusion. The ripples of the water, the reflections make it hard even there to distinguish objects, until one just sits long enough and let the mangrove in. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Chamaeleo chamaeleon - Common Chameleon - Bukalemun.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2015 at 17:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:2014 Szczytna, fontanna.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2015 at 12:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fountain in Szczytna

File:Red Fuji southern wind clear morning.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2015 at 09:35:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

South Wind, Clear Sky, by Katsushika Hokusai
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Katsushika Hokusai, uploaded by Petrusbarbygere, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Famous painting by Katsushika Hokusai, mostly known as the author of The Great Wave off Kanagawa. Renomination. -- Yann (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality reproduction. --Tremonist (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • {{s}} Razorsharp, notable artist, great work. Kleuske (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Having second thoughts. Kleuske (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I nominated the alternative. This version was published circa 1930 and also the woodblock was made circa 1930. At least Hokusai had never seen this version then I'd like to support the alternative. When the last time I nominated this, I didn't realize that. --Laitche (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

South Wind, Clear Sky, by Katsushika Hokusai

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This version was published circa 1830 - 1831. --Laitche (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obviously. Yann (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also good. --Tremonist (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better colors. Comparing the two versions, i find the above a bit overdone. Kleuske (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dull. -- Fotoriety (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I couldn't find a better one of the first publication or near first publication, I think 1930 version's detail is distinctly different from the first publication, Thanks. --Laitche (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Duplicate- — Julian H. 17:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Please check what you vote on. I don't know if you have written a voting-bot or something like that, but it doesn't work very well. — Julian H. 15:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Windows April 2015-2a.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2015 at 08:54:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Windows

File:Stairway Monsanto Castle April 2015-1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2015 at 08:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Granite stairway in the Castle of Monsanto, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment At first view it appears as a zig-zag line rather than stairs, but it's really well-made. Is it possible to increase the stones' sharpness a bit? --Tremonist (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • This is a very high resolution photo, with more than 22Mp. In my opinion the stones of granite are as sharp as they can be. Any further sharpening would cause undesired artifacts. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the optical illusion created by those dark and harsh shadows. Well spotted and executed – Chapeau! Sharpness is perfectly fine for me. If you can find the stairs on a map, geocoding would be nice. --El Grafo (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thank you @El Grafo:, it's good to know that some of our peers (one, at least!) perceive things the same way we do! Aussi, c'est bon d'être félicité en français! Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent jeu d'ombres! At low resolution I have the impression that the stones are arranged in the wall and not that they are a stairs outside of this one. -- Christian Ferrer 08:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I suggested a very small crop. Could we have a better file name? --Kadellar (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! --Kadellar (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice subject! Very good! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Monaco Panorama 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2015 at 06:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great panorama with many, many details. --Tremonist (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 00:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice panorama though the colors look faded. --Laitche (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree, I think there might be some problems with the processing. There is some inconsistency in the sky. I'm guessing that tone mapping or exposure fusion was used, the dull muddy sky is a common problem with that technique. Diliff (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now, although I could be persuaded to support if reprocessed to fix the issues with the sky. The whole scene looks slightly too dark too. I appreciate that it might have been to preserve highlight detail, but a bit of bumping up shadow and mids might be useful. Diliff (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am working on it but it is a hard job, please wait a few days. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Tate Modern, Londres, Inglaterra, 2014-08-11, DD 116-117 HDR.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2015 at 21:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the interior of the building of the Tate Modern, a modern art gallery located in London, England. It is Britain's national gallery of international modern art and the building itself, a former power station, was built in 1947 and 1963. The power station closed in 1981 and instead of demolishing it, the building was reinvented, making out of it an example of adaptive reuse, the process of finding new life in old buildings. The building itself still resembles the 20th century factory in style from the outside and that is reflected on the inside by the taupe walls, steel girders and concrete floors.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View of the interior of the building of the Tate Modern, a modern art gallery located in London, England. It is Britain's national gallery of international modern art and the building itself, a former power station, was built in 1947 and 1963. The power station closed in 1981 and instead of demolishing it, the building was reinvented, making out of it an example of adaptive reuse, the process of finding new life in old buildings. The building itself still resembles the 20th century factory in style from the outside and that is reflected on the inside by the taupe walls, steel girders and concrete floors. All by me, Poco2 21:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 21:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great view, but rather dark overall, probably due to the lack of light inside (?) and the dark construction elements. --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    Tremonist: I uploaded a brigther version Poco2 19:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you, it looks much nicer now! --Tremonist (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very well done. The man ascending the stairs seems a bit "ghostly" - but that doesn't matter that much imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good picture, definitely QI, but not visually striking enough (due in no small part to the asymmetry of the subject) for FP IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Rissne Metro station September 2014.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2015 at 19:59:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rissne metro station.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Rissne metro station, Stockholm. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ArildV (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The train is blurred "on purpose", it's greatly done! And on the left wall even the writing is readable. Good work! --Tremonist (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good, but note my suggested crop --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but note my suggested crop, too, it is a bit different --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support. Nicely taken, although it's not the most interesting view. Very minimalist, not a lot of visual interest. Diliff (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Christian IXs Chapel Dome Interior 2015-03-31-4812.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2015 at 19:23:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Neo-Byzantine Dome in Christian IX's Chapel, Roskilde Cathedral

File:A Sky View of Earth From Suomi NPP.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2015 at 18:33:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Sky View of Earth From Suomi NPP

File:Stiftskirche Melk Deckenfresko Langhaus Mittelfeld.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2015 at 12:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Via triumphalis of St. Benedict
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ceiling fresko in Melk Abbey church: Via triumphalis of St. Benedict. Painted by Johann Michael Rottmayr (1722), all the rest by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Could you please add a category above? Yann (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File:New College Chapel Interior 2, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2015 at 21:28:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

New College Reredos

File:Merton College Chapel Organ, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2015 at 21:23:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Merton College Organ

File:Dülmen, Buldern, Eingang zu einem Wohnhaus -- 2015 -- 5388.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2015 at 19:02:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gate of a house (an former grain mill) near Karthaus (Limbergen, Buldern, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany)
  • Already done.--XRay talk 19:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What does that say in English? (What does the warning sign mean?) --Laitche (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Caution - Biting Dog" is the translation of the sign. --XRay talk 19:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think the composition and technical quality is good and so is the idea of simply framing the subject like this. The background is too busy with too uneven contrast for my taste though. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A QI but not an FP—no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel Case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't find this sufficiently striking for FP, and as Slaunger says the background is too busy, as well. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2015 at 15:51:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Self-portrait of a female Celebes crested macaque
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by a female Celebes crested macaque, uploaded by Crisco 1492, nominated by Qian.neewan -- Qian.neewan (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Qian.neewan (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you please add a category above? Yann (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support copyright issue of this picture makes it a featured picture to me, but it is great anyway. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice, but IMO not FP. It's special because it was made by a monkey, but it is only a snapshot. --XRay talk 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a stolen image IMO. No matter what the stupid law says. --Donninigeorgia (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This image was discussed extensively by a large number of reviewers at the earlier nomination: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped).jpg. However, the actual JPG offered here is much larger (11.74MP vs 1.63MP) so I guess a revisit is justified. -- Colin (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is not so bad seeing the condition how it was taken (good camera or artist monkey? ;oD) And now it is famous. Yann (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 01:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Great selfportrait... Kleuske (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 11:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is enough doubt about the copyright status of this image to make featuring it unwise. Voting to promote it to FP status just as the (human) photographer has said in yesterday's edition of Amateur Photographer that he is ‘working to pursue infringers in the UK’ feels too much like an unethical exercise in photographer-baiting. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Michael, this is the wrong place to discuss the copyright status of this picture, which already have been discussed ad nauseam and settled. David Slater is not the photographer (that's the point), and he sent a DMCA notice to the WMF and it was rejected. BTW his arguments are complete bullshit. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
      • See m:Wikimedia_Foundation_Transparency_Report/Requests_for_Content_Alteration_&_Takedown#Monkey_Selfie. -- KTC (talk) 22:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yann, while I agree the copyright issue has been discussed ad nauseam and settled in the US, the image still strongly divides opinion on the ethics (enshrined in law or otherwise) of treating this image as free. A featured picture is supposed to be one "of the finest on Commons" and if some feel it is not ethical to host/promote such works then their opinion is a valid aspect that judgement of "our finest", even if some disagree. While threats of legal action continue in the UK, it would probably be unwise for any UK-based person to re-use this image [other than "fair use" for commentary, which seems to be 99% of its usage anyway], which surely affects its status as being among our best free works. -- Colin (talk) 07:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Colin, the copyright status has been reviewed by several legal experts, including from WMF and the US government. I don't think there is any doubt that it is in the public domain in the USA and most countries. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
          • I know and I agree it seems pretty settled wrt copyright law. Doesn't mean that the ethics are settled (they clearly aren't, especially outside of Commons) or that the continued threat of legal action in the UK can be completely ignored. These two issues exist, regardless of whether one agrees with them or not. -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Yann, I understand that you don't see any ethical problem here. I do. The copyright situation in the UK is by no means as clear as it is in the US, and if it were to be adjudicated by a UK court the decision could go either way. That, and the perception that Commons is featuring the image out of spite is very relevant, in my view. The comment by Daniel Case, below, exemplifies the type of hostile and unpleasant view that I find most regrettable. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Sorry to say, but talking about ethics here is a big hypocrisy. I am pretty sure than the camera owner, now being known as "the man who helped creating the monkey selfie", is a much better commercial position than being a photographer of an ordinary picture of an ordinary monkey. Beside, we promoted pictures of much worse ethics than this without anyone raising an eyebrow about it. And we will certainly do it again in the future. That's not an issue in itself, Commons being not a project for promoting ethics. I would be happy to discuss this in a RFC about "ethics and Commons", this nomination is not the right place to do it. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just another selfie. Saffron Blaze 22:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't want to be too formal but per XRay plus it was taken accidentally. --Laitche (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support because it's now a picture with historic value in and of itself, it was pretty good to begin with, and David Slater can go stick his long lens where the sun don't shine. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ... and another case in point as to why I don't contribute images to Wikimedia Commons anymore. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bastial, animal, but not FP. A "snapsot" taken from an animal can't be featured. It is simply a random image, a snapshot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Who or what created the image is not a criterion for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: sorry, but what will be featured on this absolute and real/true random snapshot??? Can you please explain it me? That was neither wanted nor intended. It is comparable to a game of roulette or lotterie ... a simply chance from an interesting animal! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Butterfly Knapweed Fritillary - Melitaea phoebe.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2015 at 17:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Melitaea phoebe


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:STD Depth Coded Stack Phallodin Stained Actin Filaments.png, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2015 at 17:16:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

High resolution microscopy image of the actin cytoskeleton
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Deconvoluted confocal microscopy image showing actin filaments within a cell. The image has been colour ocded in the z-axis. created by methylman251 - uploaded by methylman251 - nominated by Methylman251 -- Methylman251 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Methylman251 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support when nature meets abstract art... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Could you please provide a magnification factor and/or at least a rough estimate of how big the things we see in this picture are in reality (Micrometers, Nanometers, even smaller)? A scale bar would be great, if possible. --El Grafo (talk) 11:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    @El Grafo: I will look for the raw data to make an exact scalebar and reupload. But to give you an idea, from how I image I can tell you (and anyone else interested) now that the pixel size would be 40±3nm so the whole image would be ~163x163(±12.5)um and I know that the thinnest filaments that you can make out would be 140±30nm, which is about the limit of achievable resolution on a light microscope. Methylman251 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strange, but exciting. --Tremonist (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No strange for me,because I'm a biologist --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 19:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very interesting. I'm ready to support once all relevant metadata has been added to the file page. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    @El Grafo: @Slaunger: I've replaced the image with one that has a scalebar, there is also some additional metadata in the file description that I pulled from the lif file. Methylman251 (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    thanks → Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Methylman251:: Thanks, sorry I did not come back quick enough to support before the nomination was closed. Not that it would have changed the outcome though. Smile -- Slaunger (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but like Slaunger I would like to see the metadata --MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Posterization in some places, but that's totally understandable given the situation. Great image ... with more like these, we won't need mushrooms. Daniel Case (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Slaunger (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

File:Nationaal Park Drents-Friese Wold. Locatie Dieverzand. Dode boom, belangrijke voedselbron in evenwichtig biotoop 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2015 at 06:00:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Drents-Friese Wold National Park. Location Dieverzand. Dead tree, important food source in a balanced ecosystem. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you please add a category above? Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Answer: sorry I do not know what you mean. Are the English language is not powerful. --Famberhorst (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 04:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality and the composition are not outstanding, the blue sky can be seen among the trees ruins the wet-ish atmosphere, Sorry. --Laitche (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition does not work for me; it is too busy for my taste. Lightning is too dark and dull as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the idea and the subject, but I'm not fully convinced by the composition - it's quite busy. Just some ideas that came to my head: 1) A lower angle could have enabled you to keep the branches at the top left corner out of the frame. Maybe concentrating on one of the two sections of the dead tree would have helped too. 2) The whole image is quite dark, but not dark enough to make this look like an intentional choice by the photographer (could potentially work very well with this subject). 3) The white balance seems to be a little bit too yellow (you won't have much living green things this time of the year of course, but still …). 4) I've got a suspicion that this subject might work quite well in black & white. --El Grafo (talk) 07:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am also unconvinced by the composition. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Seems left side trees leaning to the left and right side trees leaning to the right. Is that actually leaning or cause by the distortion with the wide angle lens(18mm)? --Laitche (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Answer: I have automatically corrected lens with lightroom 5.7. Can also manually correct. For your information: it is hilly spot.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Small correction WB and verticals.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Better with the correction. For me, wow is limited, but the quality is very good. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the composition is much better but about the quality(especially the colour range) seems rather difficult with EF-M for this photo, IMO. --Laitche (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: in my humble opinion is in early April not much color in a dark forest. It was important for me to bring the decay of dead tree good picture and that life in the vicinity of the tree has benefited. And I succeeded in my opinion. --Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Kłodzko, pl. Chrobrego 13 03.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2015 at 19:56:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

13 Bolesława Chrobrego Square in Kłodzko
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No better example of oriel windows on Commons. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Could you please add a category above? Yann (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Yann ✓ Done --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My eyes are surprisingly drawn to that picture every time I scroll through the huge FPC page. Simple, but striking picture to me. I don't think the lighting can get better than that for the subject : it emphasizes the textures quite well. - Benh (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 04:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Only when I look this at 1280px, a head of statue and a cable at the right side appear, Here. Why? --Laitche (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    This is the previous version of this photo, I do not know why this is happening, at a resolution of 1280x881 it should be visible the last version. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • hmm, That's a mysterious. Thanks. --Laitche (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 19:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me a QI with good lightening. But something is wrong with the proportions. The window on the right extends noticably further in the vertical direction, than the one to the left. I get the impression that the vantage point was not right in the middle but has been atempted postcorrected by a perspective correction. It pretends to be symmetric, but is not quite so. It gives an unbalanced composition IMO.-- Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't mind the tight crop for this but the lighting is not appropriate for the subject, the left window's shadow is cutting off and the right window's shadow is reaching the left window, that's the reason why this doesn't look excellent, in my opinion. --Laitche (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Plus, I guess this photo was taken by low-angle notwithstanding it's showing just as if taken by level-angle, so I feel it strange. --Laitche (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Slaunger, he explained very well my own feeling.--Jebulon (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Slaunger, Laitche & Jebulon - Capture a photo directly ahead is impossible, because there is a tree. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I know it's impossible but that way(getting strange feeling) doesn't work for me in this case. --Laitche (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
But I don't mind change my vote to neutral. --Laitche (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Schloss-Oberhausen-Innenhof-Pano-2015.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2015 at 10:57:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

High resolution panorama of atrium of Oberhausen Castle ("Schloss Oberhausen"), Germany
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles_and_fortifications
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wow as a panorama, but the shadow at left is a little disturbing. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good, stricking at low and at full resolution. -- Christian Ferrer 11:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Laitche (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice and very good --LivioAndronico talk 15:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - When I try to access the file using an older computer, Chrome explains that it will not load the file. Firefox takes ages to try to load the file before it gives up. I can load the picture on a new iPad, but it takes ages (and the browser crashed while I wrote this). The picture sure looks nice (nice composition, plenty of wow, fine technical quality), but I think FP's should be fairly easy accessible. --Pugilist (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mmh, I cannot really follow your argument, Pugilist. Commons is a media archive and should provide photos in the best possible quality. You can access a downscaled version via the image description page. You can also let the wiki software do the work:

--Tuxyso (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Normally, I'd recommend the JavaScript or Flash zoom viewers but they seem to be broken at present (for me, anyway). I don't think it is reasonable to expect a browser to display an image that would be 5.4m wide at 100dpi. It is a lousy way to view such an image. The zoom viewers provide a better experience. Please don't judge our images on the limitations of MediaWiki or your decision to use a web browser to review the 100% image. You wouldn't use a web browser to read a book. MediaWiki has a self-imposed restriction on its ability to downsize, but 7000px wide version. -- Colin (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The very wide angle of view leads to extreme distortions when the image is viewed as a whole. The small stairs coming from the left and right at the bottom of the frame look like they would meet at a right angle at the place the camera was standing. From GoogleEarth I can see that they actually are one straight line. This is of course perfectly normal for shots like this, but can be misleading for people unfamiliar with wide panoramas. Hence, I'd like to suggest to enhance the description a little bit to read High resolution XXX° panorama of … to make that more clear (with XXX° being something around 180°, I guess?). Apart from that, Symbol support vote.svg Support of course. --El Grafo (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, El Grafo, for the useful hint. I've added some information regarding the shooting position and explanation for the curvature of the stairs in the foreground. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its tilted to rigth, could saw that in thumb, on the other hand, stairs bellow are tilting to left. --Mile (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Mile, I do not really understand your comment. I see absolutely no tilt - neither vertically not horizontally. Pictogram voting question.svg Question Have you read the image description? The different direction of the stairs I am standing on is a result of the projection (cylindrical). Please add a note to the image if you have still concerns. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info check the line bellow the clock. No matter what projection is, you are positioned in centre as far i see, so shouldt be tilted in any case. On other hand, i wont oppose since lot of work and result isnt bad with minor mistake. --Mile (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have to agree with Mile in their observation. It appears to be a local geometrical distortion in the clock region. Does Hugin have the possibility to add horizontal control points? That is how I would control that myself (using PTGui). If you are a real perfectionist you will probably fix thatSmile. On the other hand, it is really a minor detail (I did not spot it myself after scrutiny until I read Miles comment), and overall it is a splendid piece of work. It is clear for me that you have been very careful in the entire process from the capture to the processing. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
          • It took me very long to figure out if it is improvable by horizontal control points. It is, but only one horizontal line at the area around the clock is vertical in real. The difference is, according to Slaunger, subtle because only one line at the area around the clock is really straight. I will upload a new version tomorrow (already too late at least in Germany). --Tuxyso (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I guess it's a 270°+ panorama, Am I wrong? --Laitche (talk) 08:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I missed the camera location. --Laitche (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Results already posted. — Julian H. 15:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Crocodylus acutus aka American crocodyle.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2015 at 03:40:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Webysther 20131026172834 - Rocha com algas e ouriço-do-mar.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2015 at 20:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rock with sea urchin, red algae, green and yellow at beach in Espírito Santo, Brazil
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Webysther (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very beautiful, but unfortunately blurred and the water on the right is overexposed. --King of ♠ 02:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts, Webysther: It's fixable? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    Overexposed is simple to fix, if the data is in raw, give me one day to see this. About blurred i do no, because the long exp. cause this, water move the plants. -- Webysther (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Overexposed fixed. -- Webysther (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Webysther: A exposição não ficou boa. O melhor seria que a água à direita voltasse ao normal assim: [1]. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @ArionEstar: Applied over the raw the fixed, the quality is really better. -- Webysther (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    Color is better but unsharpness remains. --King of ♠ 04:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness is acceptable for a difficult moment for shooting, IMHO. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's kinda good idea but not the wow idea, IMO. --Laitche (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good idea, but has technical problems. --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good for IQ, not the wow idea, IMO. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me it lacks some interesting focal point that the eye can rest on. The moss is not of sufficient interest in itself to fulfil that role. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Tiradentes escuartejado (Tiradentes supliciado) by Pedro Américo 1893.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2015 at 16:10:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tiradentes quatered, by Pedro Américo.

File:Singapore Supertree-Grove-in-The-Gardens-01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2015 at 18:08:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Supertree Grove in Singapore
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cccefalon - uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 18:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very interesting subject, but unfortunately too tight on the sides, especially the right which is cut off. --King of ♠ 03:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is just a part of the much bigger Supertree Grove in Singapore. The trees are standing in a circle and you will always have some of them cut when viewing from ground level. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    Change to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral in light of the difficulty in obtaining a good composition. --King of ♠ 02:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support is a beautiful structure, the quality is excellent. The cut is not the best but the image is very pleasant.--LivioAndronico talk 12:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely capable of being photographed at an FP level, but in this case the crops, even if they're unavoidable, and the washed-out sky don't work for me. Daniel Case (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel Case. --Laitche (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting for sure. --Tremonist (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also per Daniel Case. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Capitol del Estado de Indiana, Indianápolis, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-22, DD 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 19:07:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Front view of the Indiana Statehouse, the state capitol building of the U.S. state of Indiana. The building, built in 1888, houses the Indiana General Assembly, the office of the Governor of Indiana, the Supreme Court of Indiana, and other state officials. The building it is located in Indianapolis, the state capital.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Front view of the Indiana Statehouse, the state capitol building of the U.S. state of Indiana. The building, built in 1888, houses the Indiana General Assembly, the office of the Governor of Indiana, the Supreme Court of Indiana, and other state officials. The building it is located in Indianapolis, the state capital. All by me, Poco2 19:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 19:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The perspective is a few strange --LivioAndronico talk 19:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Seems pretty sharp actually considering it was taken at f/16. I would have expected a bit more diffraction softness. Diliff (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If Is good for David, probably that I wrong --LivioAndronico talk 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice symmetry but I would have moved forward to get the trees out of the way. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Daniel Case, have you really considered the effect of moving forward? A little further forward and there's a great big statue dominating your vision and obscuring the building, and the trees probably aren't completely out of the frame. Go in front of the statue and you'd struggle to fit the building in-frame or achieve a reasonable rectilinear image, and the two other trees would start to dominate. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I fully agree with Colin. I can offer other perspectives ([2], [3]), but believe me moving forward was not an option. Btw, I have uploaded a new version with an improvement of the perspective. Poco2 19:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually like those other two a little bit more, if you'd been able to get the treetops in. It's really a matter of taste. Sometimes the perfect angle you'd like is just impossible. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Very much so. Many buildings (particularly in London) don't give you the ability to step back and photograph from an ideal angle, you typically end up with light poles, street signs, awkward angles and lots of perspective distortion. It is a matter of taste but I don't think Poco's alternative images show the building better. This one seems to be the least obstructed view of the building. Diliff (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 03:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a colour noise on the bottom right window shade, isn't it. --Laitche (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Laitche: I have reduced the CN in a preventive way but withouth really seeing it. If it is still there in the current version, could you please add a note? There was also a bit of Moiré, I reduced it. Poco2 12:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's maybe a Moiré. I don't mind whether you remove or not. --Laitche (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, it's removed. --Laitche (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't fancy the tight crop and both trees but I know how difficult to take this building, and hope you to find more impressive angle in the future :) --Laitche (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The trees are disturbing. Not your fault, but... Yann (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Zaaddozen van Stachys macrantha 'Superba' Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 15:44:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Seed pods of Stachys macrantha 'Superba' Location, Garden reservation Jonker Valley.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Seed pods of Stachys macrantha 'Superba' Location, Garden reservation Jonker Valley. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • WeakSymbol support vote.svg Support Centered would be better --LivioAndronico talk 19:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rule of thirds. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of botanical interest. --Tremonist (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I've liked to see more detail, which is partially hindered by the backlight. Why didn't you take the shot from the other side? Poco2 09:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Answer: sometimes something is not possible.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see the intention of this composition but I don't think it works. --Laitche (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great lighting. Slight backlighting is what makes plants glow. --King of ♠ 02:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Results already posted. — Julian H. 15:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:Scarlet peacock (Anartia amathea) male underside Tr.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 14:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Scarlet peacock (Anartia amathea) male underside, Asa Wright nature Centre, Trinidad
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Charles (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lovely colors--LivioAndronico talk 14:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nicely captured, but I'm slightly concerned by the colours of the flower below it, it looks like it's oversaturated or colour channels are blown... But as long as the butterfly isn't suffering the same problem, it's not a big deal I suppose. Diliff (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bojars (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nicely composed. I'd suggest cropping in a bit to get rid of that dead space on both sides. But on the other hand that helps diffuse attention from the issues with the flower that David brought up. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't want to get opposing opinions to my opposing vote anymore but not detailed overall especially the edges of the wings are not sharp and bright parts are overexposed.(I know it was taken with 400mm lens.) --Laitche (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • All votes should be contestable though, and you should be able to defend your position - it's normal. Diliff (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks Diliff, I want to defend the FP quality more than my position, for now :) --Laitche (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
        • You should think more to defend your position, trust me --LivioAndronico talk 19:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
          • I know well what you want to say, but the FP is for the works not for the members, Thanks Livio. --Laitche (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
          • It seems like a real life, If people who behave very defensively then would get a success but also that's risky cause they might lose themselves. --Laitche (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful composition, but per Laitche. And I'd add it falls a bit short quality wise, despite the small size. Guessed it was cropped rather than downsampled (I'm not aware the lens used has this big a magnification). - Benh (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bokeh is nice, but quality is low despite not so big resolution. --Mile (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose The bar for butterfly images has moved very high during the last years and I fear this is slightly sub-FPC-standard in terms of sharpness. Very nice separation between bright subject and smooth dark background tough! --El Grafo (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of zoological interest. --Tremonist (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am not happy with the format - the crop is tight on bottom and wide at the sides. But sharpness is ok for me. Overall, I can support this image. --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many gray areas. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, especially worried about overexposure and background posterization. — Julian H. 16:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I agree somehow with pros and contras...Poco2 09:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Leccinum versipelle LC0366.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 10:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leccinum versipelle


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Fungi

File:Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta (Nepi).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 08:39:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cathedral of Santa Maria Assunta (Nepi)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico talk 08:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful subject, lighting, and a nice perspective. The image is slightly soft at 100%, even in the central, brighter areas, which I think may be caused by NR. For me, however, this doesn't unduly detract from the image. --Baresi F (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The light and colors make the difference. Good quality. Yann (talk) 12:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose for the future FP standard Overexposed the left window, looks like painted with white color. --Laitche (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion Laitche, however, in the medieval Catholic churches is an effect due to have that within you see that served to illuminate the statue of the Madonna (being in the Middle Ages without electricity). However, the window is very small compared to the pictures and do not think it's so annoying, こんにちは.--LivioAndronico talk 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not so annoying, but it looks artificial compared with the right window. --Laitche (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Not artificial Laitche, indeed, a lights from the east and the other from the west, to take advantage of the sunlight, as you see there aren't other windows,thanks --LivioAndronico talk 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't say it's artificial, I said it looks artificial. --Laitche (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • sunlight looks artificial...I don't understand --LivioAndronico talk 14:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Besides, Baresi F described this as soft cause by NR, but I can't believe that photos need NR which is taken with ISO 100, so I think it's unsharp compared with current church interior FPs. --Laitche (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Having the church different illuminations even at 100 ISO is created a bit of noise which must be reduced in PP. However before you oppose to one thing and then you come out the other, better let it go that is better, thanks anyway --LivioAndronico talk 14:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If you insist that, I can say nothing, and thanks for the following comment.(Sorry, this have lots of reasons to oppose so I didn't want to write all...) --Laitche (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There can be many reasons why it has NR at ISO 100. Livio may have increased the shadows brightness which would introduce noise even at ISO 100. It is a scene with a lot of dynamic range, and it is probably as good as it can be with a single exposure. Nothing could have saved the white window, cameras simply don't have enough dynamic range capabilities in their sensors to capture bright sunlight detail at the same time as a dark interior detail. Diliff (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've considered the technical limit of single exposure by 24Mpx with APS-C, and I think this shot is insufficient luminous at this scene + this sensor for a FP bar. And after I read your comment of supporting vote, I think it's not good thing that an adjustment the FP standard by each individual, but it's OK for now. --Laitche (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I haven't adjust the FP standard for each individual - that's an assumption you've made. I've opposed many of Livio's church interiors before. I simply wanted to point out that he has improved his photography (composition, processing, and overall image sharpness) and this image has reached the minimum standard for me to support it. Diliff (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I received your intention(means you've not adjust). --Laitche (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It 'a thought, I tried to explain, then if you believe ... fun.I like the comparison if it is constructive.--LivioAndronico talk 15:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Besides, If you want to portray a mood of the Middle Ages without electricity, that yellow electric light is so annoying.(If only.) --Laitche (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Next time I enter and turn off at my liking, but please--LivioAndronico talk 15:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good imho --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice photo --Charles (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Not perfect, but one of the better interior photos by Livio, and I think it is a big improvement on his previous images. Diliff (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Moderate support While I wonder if the white balance on the ambient light from outside could be better corrected, the central portion more than makes up for that (that crepuscular ray is just priceless). Like David says, not perfect but more than good enough. Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until you add back the color space. Very nice ray of light otherwise. A bit dark also, but a definite improvement over previous ones, which I wanted to point out. - Benh (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And how you would add to the color space? I honestly do not know what you mean Benh--LivioAndronico talk 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know... because I don't have much clue about what your workflow looks like. I've sorted out that Wladyslaw had an issue with his Gimp (probably his settings), but you don't seem to use it. If I had to bet on your case, it would be on Paint.net. - Benh (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And when you don't know something, check Wikipedia (you know, that little encyclopedia we are all contributing to somehow ;-) ) Color space. There's even an Italian version. - Benh (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • But I used Photoshop CC,boh...anyway,ok thanks --LivioAndronico talk 21:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be unsatisfied to leave this issue pending. Can you tell us more about your workflow? From the moment you take the picture to the moment you upload it to Wikipedia. - Benh (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • after taking the photo I drive, dinner (I joke Face-grin.svg).... still nothing that, I adjusted the perspective, cut, added a bit of sharpness and a slight NR. Then a bit of contrast, raised a little brightness and added a few of color ... end--LivioAndronico talk 22:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I was more asking how you import the photo in your computer. How exactly do you open it? Photoshop? ACR? Lightroom? Something else? How is it saved at the end? Can you check ur exif at each stage of your workflow to find out the faulty link? - Benh (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I open the nef with camera raw and later with photoshop,and save in jpg...not very complicated --LivioAndronico talk 07:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This photo has been through "paint.net 4.0.5", it says so in the EXIF. I can't trust the colours. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
From exif : Software used Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows)--LivioAndronico talk 14:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
See "Creator Tool" tag. This has definitely been touched by Paint.NET which imo shouldn't go near any FP photographs. Sure, Photoshop has also been used, but Photoshop CC does not remove colourspace tags. -- Colin (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Face-surprise.svg Ops....I really sorry,I had done something without remembering, the fact remains that I was wrong and I apologize. --LivioAndronico talk 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What do you have to use Paint.net for when you have a Photoshop? Can't you just reprocess and skip Paint.net? I'm concerned that not so many look to care about colors accuracy... - Benh (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a nice view for sure, but it doesn't look real to me. The lighting is odd blue and white and yellow that I do not see in any other photo of this cathedral. The shaft of light looks painted-on. And close up the whole thing looks like a painting rather than a photo. I suspect this is a combination of aggressive NR, clarity and sharpening. And the lack of colourspace tag that Benh notes is also an issue. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice real view, nice light. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 15:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You are getting my support (for the first time, I guess) here. The execution is not really at FP level: some areas are gone due to overexposure, the picture is overall too dark, I miss contrast, detail is not the best, the bottom crop can be improved, it doesn't look as real as it should (this is IMHO an issue in your processing) but the motif in this case and the effect of the lighting surpasses the mentioned problems. I suggest you to keep on working in your photographic skills, development and -if possible- equipment and go back to this place in one year, and then ask us to replace this FP by an even better one. If you don't do it, it could be me who shows up over there :) Poco2 09:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't want your support here given that what you write is more negative than positive Poco2, I do not understand --LivioAndronico talk 09:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Besides, it is not polite to those who supported me--LivioAndronico talk 09:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but I am owner of my votes. Please, don't do that again. Poco2 09:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You are right, forgot that. I will ask my doctor to get a stronger medication, thanks. Poco2 09:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:U.S. Soldiers at Bougainville (Solomon Islands) March 1944.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2015 at 07:56:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"U.S. Army soldiers on Bougainville (one of the Solomon Islands) in World War II." This photo was taken in March 1944.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by U.S. Army - uploaded by Lupo - nominated by Pine -- Pine 07:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pine 07:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't like the pictures of war anyway the quality is not very good,but interesting --LivioAndronico talk 08:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks quite unreal somehow. --Tremonist (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it and wish I was talented enough to take something similar even with my probably much modern gear. - Benh (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a valued shoot, but a bad crop. No FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent lighting, but agree that composition could be better. Image quality is fine for the time. --King of ♠ 03:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting is over. — Julian H. 15:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Eurovision Song Contest 1962 - Ronnie Carroll-edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 22:40:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ronny Caroll in Eurovision
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Nationaal Archief- uploaded by Clausule restored and nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 22:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ezarateesteban 22:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The size is small,the quality is not very good,but interesting --LivioAndronico talk 08:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting. --Tremonist (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Framing is either too tight or too loose with the hands cropped like that. Overall quality is not bad but not really convincing either. --El Grafo (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting is over. — Julian H. 15:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Lenini mäetipp (J. Künnap).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 20:58:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lenin Peak (7134 m)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info First time when Estonian flag reached over 7000 m. Created by Jaan Künnap in 1989 - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The subject would also be interesting if the quality of the picture was not so terrible,sorry --LivioAndronico talk 21:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong oppose Severely underexposed sky, Was the idea to get both blue and black into the picture to complement the white? Clever but not FP. Daniel Case (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sky too dark. --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What about cropped version of it? Like the first upload in file history. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This was taken at a very high altitude, where light conditions differ dramatically from what we are used to. Shadows are much harsher and skies are much more blue. The effect seems extreme in this picture, so I'd guess a polarizer was used to exaggerate it even more – which would make the very dark sky a creative choice of the photographer rather than an error. You are of course free to like that or not, but I'd like to encourage everyone to have a quick look at the section High-Altitude Blue of Michael Freeman's Capturing Light (Google Books link) before dismissing this as underexposed. --El Grafo (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support pity we do not often have the documents of this intensity. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support an image for this gallery : Commons:Featured pictures/Historical -- Christian Ferrer 16:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting is over. — Julian H. 15:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20150321171849-2 - Painel Tiradentes de Candido Portinari.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 14:24:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Painel Tiradentes of Candido Portinari. One of best works of Portinari.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Webysther - uploaded by Webysther - nominated by Webysther -- Webysther (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Webysther (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality reproduction, interesting work of art. Yann (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good - but unsharp. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,very good idea but unsharp --LivioAndronico talk 17:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Seeing the resolution, I think it is unfair to say it is not sharp. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This picture is the best of this work of art had made in digital world. The best quality after this is provided by son of Portinari, look here for comparison. The project Portinari study to use this image for oficinal picture. Is possible make a better version (more sharper), but i need much, much time. :( -- Webysther (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand, but I look at the quality,sorry --LivioAndronico talk 14:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, good resolution, but blurried, strong noise imo to a FP. CAs (if you want, I can write notes) --Lmbuga (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Please Lmbuga. --Webysther (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info In place of exposition is not possible use tripod, flash and have low light. O do no how fix this issues. To create this image i used another 20 joined. -- Webysther (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If you look at the image at 6000px, most of the image is pixel-sharp. There's a bit of unsharpness on the arm in the center-right, but it's not too bad. I am typically opposed to downsampling, but this is a case where the image at full resolution is so unsharp that virtually no information would be lost by reducing the size (by 50% linearly, may I suggest?). --King of ♠ 04:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For its unusual size it's wonderful! --Tremonist (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting ended on April 24. — Julian H. 15:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- Christian Ferrer 06:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Adolf Mosengel Dorf in den Berner Alpen.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2015 at 08:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oil painting "Dorf in den Berner Alpen" by Adolf Mosengel (1837-1885)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Adolf Mosengel - uploaded by FA2010 - nominated by Pine -- Pine 08:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pine 08:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 12:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are strange marks in the lower part. What are they? Yann (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I guess those are scratches. --Laitche (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Don't you think these should be cleaned? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
        • @Yann: For the real one, I'm not a curator so have no idea, about a digital process if those are small parts, I think it's better to be fixed but this large parts, I don't think so, Regards. --Laitche (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and nice--Lmbuga (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Lmbuga. I'm "wowed"! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was about to say "wow, nice photo, looks like a painting" until I realized it was a painting. --King of ♠ 04:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting ended on 24 April. — Julian H. 15:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Croatia Opatija Women with dove BW 2014-10-10 10-35-13.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2015 at 14:10:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
✓ Done Thank you for that hint --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A bit too dark perhaps? --King of ♠ 02:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not even a QI perhaps? --Laitche (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is a bit dark but very nice,good composition --LivioAndronico talk 12:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Could be a little lighter, indeed. --Tremonist (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good backlight. Please, do not clarify it: Artistic light--Lmbuga (talk) 19:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral some Underexposed in right side, and could have a better WB --The Photographer (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a creative shoot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice mood and great composition. --Code (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Inspiring Poco2 09:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not enough sharp, lacking of dynamic range as a backlight shot taken at 10:35 a.m.(If the Exif is reliable.). I guess the one of reason of that is caused by a small CCD sensor. --Laitche (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting ended on 23 April. — Julian H. 15:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Laitche (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Wall April 2015-2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2015 at 15:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Minimalism: detail of wall and window in the Belém Cultural Centre, Lisboa, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I see a little bit of barrel distortion. --King of ♠ 21:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure about the centered composition.--Jebulon (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, that is a real possibility and it may deserve an alternative version. But what if the !votes split between the two?... What the hell, tht's go for it! Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like these minimalistic compositions a lot! It could benefit from a geocode. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Here it is: the exact object location, so you can go there and do a better job! By the way, I appreciate your deferred (and displaced) comments! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral but prefer this one. --Laitche (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC) --Laitche (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I am struggling with the notion of minimalism in FPC. I don't mean this as an attack on anybody, but I personally feel that this is a kind of get-out-of-jail concept that makes an image untouchable to a set of expectations we would otherwise have, such as having a lot of EV, being an appealing and accurate representation of the motive, having nice light etc. When I look at the image, I feel that it is a good supporting photo for an article, giving people a better understanding of the facade details, but this is not something that gives me a wow effect or makes me think that the image is outstanding. Such photos might appeal to many, but I am not sure whether this is just because they are unusual and obviously different from boring standard images many creators now think should be FP. I am not denying that my oppose might be based on personal preference (I usually feel that images of entire works of architecture are superior), but at the end of the day, such preferences make our votes. BTW: The WB also looks too cold to me. --DXR (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for bringing this issue to the discussion, DXR. It is a matter of fact that the so-called "artsy images" were never concensually regarded as truly useful for the project (except the reproductions of notable artists) and have usually a hard time in FPC. However we should keep in mind that Commons repository is intended to much more than just illustrating Wikipedia articles. While WP:FPC is focused on the encyclopaedic use and value of the pictures in Wikipedia, that is not the case with Commons, as our FP are used to many purposes outside Wikimedia. I always said, and that is written in my profile of Meet our Photographers (here), that I consider Photography as a means to interpret reality and to transmit such interpretation to others. That is precisely what I'm doing here with the photos of the Centro Cultural de Belém, to which a minimalistic view seems to apply perfectly. Are these images useful, besides being beautiful (for me)? I believe so. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Alvesgaspar for your measured response. I think that the point I was trying to make is slightly different, though. I do not want to challenge the value of images like this one, in fact I do think it has EV. I just think that it is quite difficult to assess whether it is outstanding or "the best of commons", because there is little material to measure it against here. In this way, the vote becomes more of a "like vs. don't like" than I personally would like to see in this forum. I agree that WP:FP is more EV-driven, but at the same time COM:FP still is very much biased in the direction of EV on a spectrum between pure documentation and abstract art, at least if we look at what is presented here most of the time. --DXR (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Photographing a detail of a building, particularly one of architectural merit, is as important as photographing the whole facade or interior. Having looked at other images of this building, I see it lends itself to a minimalist approach. Here we can concentrate on the coloured bricks, the little dark squares and the squares-within-squares window. No other distractions. And symmetry. I can certainly see this photo appearing in a book that discusses the building or its architect, so for me it is plenty enough educational-value (as opposed to encyclopaedic value, where it is unlikely such small details would merit inclusion). -- Colin (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Wall April 2015-2a.jpg[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Alternative version special to @Jebulon: (and also for myself) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's so funny, I've nerver seen the special alternative for an individual :) --Laitche (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one too. It is an improvement that the lower grey 'bar' is not included in this crop. I think it improves the composition. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's great too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes !--Jebulon (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but for me the off-center composition distracts from the minimalism. --King of ♠ 23:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me a perfect composition, everything centered might be wrong.--Hubertl (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. I also think that the original composition is better. --DXR (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's really a subjective issue, but I fail to get how moving the square to a rule of third point makes it more interesting on such an abstract picture. - Benh (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not inspiring to me, sorry Poco2 08:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I don't find this arrangement as satisfying as the first. -- Colin (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Voting ended on April 21. — Julian H. 15:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Tue 21 Apr → Sun 26 Apr
Wed 22 Apr → Mon 27 Apr
Thu 23 Apr → Tue 28 Apr
Fri 24 Apr → Wed 29 Apr
Sat 25 Apr → Thu 30 Apr
Sun 26 Apr → Fri 01 May

Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]

Fri 17 Apr → Sun 26 Apr
Sat 18 Apr → Mon 27 Apr
Sun 19 Apr → Tue 28 Apr
Mon 20 Apr → Wed 29 Apr
Tue 21 Apr → Thu 30 Apr
Wed 22 Apr → Fri 01 May
Thu 23 Apr → Sat 02 May
Fri 24 Apr → Sun 03 May
Sat 25 Apr → Mon 04 May
Sun 26 Apr → Tue 05 May

Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]

The bot[edit]

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below. However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure[edit]

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Featured picture}} or {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessements template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
    • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==

{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.

  1. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2015), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request[edit]

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2015.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.