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)‎ | +/−

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, 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 none the less 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

Sets are temporarily disallowed for technical reasons; will reopen soon.

If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set.

  • All images should be processed and presented in a similar manner to ensure consistency amongst the set.
  • All images should be linked to all others in the "Other Versions" section of the image summary.
  • If the set of subjects has a limited number of elements, then there should be a complete set of images. This may result in images in this kind of set with no "wow" factor, and perhaps little value on their own. Their value is closely bound to the value of having a complete set of these subjects. The decision to feature should be based on this overall value.
  • If the set of subjects is unlimited, the images should be chosen judiciously. Each image should be sufficiently different to the others to add a great deal of value to the overall set. The majority of images should be able to qualify for FP on their own.
  • All images should be of high technical quality.

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


Set nominations ONLY

Sets are temporarily disallowed for technical reasons; will reopen soon.

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}}

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

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 7 supporting votes
  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:Lophozia silvicola leaf cells.webm[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 18:28:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Optical sectioning of leaf cells of the liverwort Lophozia silvicola, showing chloroplasts (green) and oil bodies (pellucid). The fine-scale movement of the oil bodies is the result of Brownian motion - created by Des Callaghan - uploaded by Des Callaghan - nominated by User:Des Callaghan -- Des Callaghan (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Des Callaghan (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great, I would remove the noise (sound noise) -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 21:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Paks Margareeta ja Stoltingi torn.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 18:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fat Margaret and Stolting tower, defensive towers in the old town of Tallinn
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Fat Margaret and Stolting tower. Created/uploaded/nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose darkness and shadows are dominating this image and sadly not a high dynamic range --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Louvre museum 2014.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 12:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Grimmia montana
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is overexposed in a way that is almost certainly not fixable. Furthermore the quality is not on par with other FPs of the Louvre (see here or here) --DXR (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Grimmia montana.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 09:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Grimmia montana
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Des Callaghan - The mosses Grimmia montana and Grimmia decipiens on the igneous volcanic rock (trachyte) of Traprain Law, Scotland - uploaded by Des Callaghan - nominated by Des Callaghan (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Des Callaghan (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Schloss Hohenheim 2013 06 dawn panini pan.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 08:49:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Schloss Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. I used panino as a compromise between curved edges (cylindrical) and far too heavy distortion (rectilinear). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose shadows are disturbing here strongly --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Stiftskirche Melk Deckenfresken 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2014 at 06:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Total view of the ceiling of Melk Abbey Church with the frescos by Johann Michael Rottmayr (1716-22)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Total view of the ceiling of Melk Abbey Church with the frescos by Johann Michael Rottmayr, painted between 1716 and 1722. Photographed, uploaded, and nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I lost my pictures of Melk (and Austria), but I didn't take this one anyway, I think it's well done because it wasn't that easy, big ceiling. --Kadellar (talk) 08:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 10:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I respect the technical quality of the photography and the mastery required to architect/paint such a ceiling but I'm not sure how you guys can look at this photo without feeling oppressed? I find the abundant light harassing and the whole being like a spam of details to look at without any exit point for the eyes... I'm feeling trapped inside a maze. I even feel like it's going to fall on my head—I didn't think I would be that sensitive to a bunch of pixels but it litterally gives me difficulties to breathe. And from a more technical point if view, it seems to be a bit blurry. That was the useless point of view from someone who don't know how to appreciate church architecture/painting in general (and even more than that). -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Jielbeaumadier belle-dame 4 calvi 2009.jpeg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 21:10:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Painted Lady butterfly (vanessa cardui) on a flower near the pine forest of Calvi, Corsica.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by Jiel (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, poor detail regarding the small size, crop too tight --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The idea was good and the composition (apart from the thigh crop), as well, but I think that the problem is also that you got the wrong side of the butterfly, the one in the shadow Poco2 10:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Basel - Basler Münster - Westfassade.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 20:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Minster of Basel, Switzerland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Some parts of the image (mainly the sky) seem a little bit flat (lacking in contrast and saturation) but otherwise very well done technically. Diliff (talk) 09:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is good but looking at it I have the impression that spines are leaning out to each side (overcorrected?), the tourists, the roof on the right, the top of the shadow in the middle or the motorbikes are not helping, either, but that could pass. Poco2 11:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Color is not beautiful. Alphama (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC) Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. ..Wladyslaw (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like the quality and the building, but I think that the angle of your photo that is shown on the dewiki article is better and not so extreme (I would definitely support that one). The construction works are also a bit distracting. --DXR (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question As a totally novice and in architecture, I'm genuinely wondering where is the wow factor here? The light is flat, the point of view has nothing special, and the building itself with its non-appealing colors is not so sexy visually speaking even though I'm sure it has plenty of merits from an architectural/historical point of view. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have reworked the image totally and corrected the perspective to avoid the impression of overcorrecting. Now we have also a bit different crop so that the roof on the right edge is not disturbing anymore. Further I have corrected a bit the curves. Kadellar and David: please have a look if you support the image with this changes too. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is better now. --Kadellar (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Limburg Cathedral, Nave 20140917 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 19:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nave of Limburg Cathedral
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n by me, -- DXR (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The nave of Limburg Cathedral, usual technique. Unfortunately my position was not quite centered (small differences of a few cm become apparent if you take panos), but I still think that the result is quite pleasing. The cathedral was crowded most of the time and so I had to be very quick to get an image without major ghosts etc.-- DXR (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Haha, you're experiencing all the problems I have with my panoramas, I see. Yeah, it only takes a few cm of misalignment and things like arches lose their apparent symmetry. And of course creating the illusion of an empty cathedral by being selective about when you take each frame... I usually try to wait until everyone is out of the image, but it's not always possible. I've learned to be patient though. At least, I appear patient, but I'm throwing daggers at them in my head. ;-) Diliff (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's driving me mad and often enough, the benches are not a very good indication either. Personally, I don't mind people sitting in the benches since most actually pray/meditate, which of course is the main purpose of a church. Those who wander about aimlessly are far more dangerous ;-). --DXR (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
        • True. I've just spent a week in Lithuania and one of the churches in Vilnius was full of brainless tourists. I don't expect people to always avoid walking in front of my camera (since it takes 5-10 minutes to shoot a full panorama), but these people were just standing right in front of the camera all the time. They could stand anywhere, but they didn't care that they were ruining my photos. It took 45 minutes of waiting to complete one panorama. Grrr! Anyway, I finally got it, and it was a really beautiful baroque church so maybe you'll see it here in a few weeks. :-) Diliff (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Could very easily have been one of my photos. It has all the same signatures... Diliff (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support even the same lense like Diliff :) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support because of the missing symmetry but also the subject itself, pretty, but not an outstanding motif Poco2 11:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Allébron September 2014.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 19:10:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ArildV - uploaded by ArildV| - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really creatively and very successful -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as creator. Thank you Villy!--ArildV (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 20:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose Beautiful and striking as it is, I still cannot tell just from looking at it what it's supposed to be a picture of (I know, I read the description, and it's a tram ... but still), and I am further missing any idea of its encyclopedic value, save perhaps to illustrate some concept in visual aesthetics. Daniel Case (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Daniel Case, this is not en:wp. There is no requirement on Commons FP for "encyclopaedic" value (i.e. for it to be suitable to illustrate an article). There is a core "educational" requirment for material on Commons but this is very loosely interpreted. Outside of an encyclopaedia, educational media (web sites, magazines, books) require images to catch the readers eye (eye candy), to break up large slabs of text (giving the eye/mind a rest) and to engage more senses and parts of the mind than just those processing text/language. This isn't just gratuitous decoration, but actually helps the reader/learning experience. Many of those images are not standard encyclopeadic shots of "something" but may simply be lovely images with a loose connection to the subject. One may remember a fact supplied alongside a memorable image far better than if presented in plain text. The fact that this image is real, rather than just some Photoshop montage, is valuable. -- Colin (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
      • So, you couldn't figure out what it was supposed to be either without looking at the description? Face-smile.svg Daniel Case (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Colin. About encyclopedic value, the picture could easily be used in these articles: Motion blur, Long-exposure photography and may be in Fine-art photography. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
        • To be honest, though, I don't think the argument that an image has EV due to the photographic technique used (or photographic mistake, even) is particularly compelling for Commons. And I'm less keen on extremely contrived images such as the Picture Of The Year lightbulbs (but I'm clearly in the minority on those!) -- Colin (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Daniel Case -- Jiel (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fantastic --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love it. --Kadellar (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful. More like this please. Let's celebrate creativity, not stifle it. -- Colin (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Colin --DXR (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really inspiring! Poco2 11:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Sedov (ship, 1921) and Kruzenshtern (ship, 1926), Sète, France.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 17:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sedov (ship, 1921) and Kruzenshtern (ship, 1926)

Category proposed : Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Previously nominate. But the image is so different after reworking that I give it a second chance. I hope that the new edition will lead to you forget the backgound issues of the first nomination. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 17:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice ! -- Jiel (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As much as I'm a fan of the soft golden hour and the overall composition, it simply doesn't work here. The boat is extremely rich visually with a lot of little details here and there that get entirely lost with the overly complex background. Even the overall silouhette of the boat is not necessarily easy to grasp depending on the resolution of the image being looked at. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Lancha Gávea I.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 16:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Halley Pacheco de Oliveira - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I added categories that should be correct based on the description and my id of the aircraft. I think the photo is tilted significantly, I'd correct that if you don't mind. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 17:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Which one of the boat or the plane is the main subject? Having both in focus with a balanced composition get our eyes going back and forth from one to the other without understanding what really you're trying to show here. Maybe the simple coincidence of having both in the same picture? That wouldn't be wow factor to me. Also the colors are not so appealing and the highlights on the boat contrast with the darker mountain in the background, making it a bit tiring for the eyes. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Rynek Starego Miasta - 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 13:05:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mermaid at the centre of the Old Town Market Square, Warsaw, Poland.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mermaid (symbol of the city) at the centre of the Old Town Market Square of Warsaw, Poland. It is impossible to have all facades vertical, because they're not perfectly straight. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Maire (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Nice pic, though I'd advise renaming the file to sth that includes the name of the city. The current file name might actually refer to numerous places in Poland. Maire (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I should have probably added "w Warszawie", but I think it's not so necessary now because it's written on the description, thanks for the review (and the nomination!) --Kadellar (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Motive and light is nice, but I cannot really make friends with the centered composition. The direction of view of the statue implies imho a decentered composition where the statue is set more to the left. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Centered composition is what a wanted here, as if the mermaid was leading the city; thanks for your comments, I understand your point of view. --Kadellar (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree though with Tuxyso, a special place for me btw, Poco2 11:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very charged visually—the statue would have been more nicely highlighted if it was detached from the background through a depth of field. The composition is not optimal neither. I know that the concrete block supporting the statue is not the sexiest but the lower crop gives the feeling that a bit of the statue itself is missing. I maybe would have tried to put some more space on the top as well to make the picture breathe. Now, would have it better with a portrait format to follow the vertical line of the subject? Even if the previous points were improved, I don't think it would have been enough to bring me a wow—it's just a normal photo of a statue, took from a normal point of view like millions must have done before. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Most pictures here have been taken before by someone else, and even better. Check the category in Commons and you'll see this one is different from all the rest. --Kadellar (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right, it's indeed a different angle of view than the others photos in the same category. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You say that as if it was strictly forbidden. --Kadellar (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It is not a requirement, however, it is good practice. IMHO --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Gran Vía - 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2014 at 13:00:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gran Vía Street, Madrid, Spain.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Gran Vía Street (Madrid, Spain) is one of the main streets of the city. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ariadacapo (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per QIC, really nice. Where were you standing? Poco2 11:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought you would know. It is El Corte Inglés, 9th floor, write it down for your next visit! --Kadellar (talk) 11:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hehe, I was wondering too about where you were standing :-) Jiel (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Alcazaba 1, Almeria, Spain.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2014 at 19:14:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alcazaba of Almeria
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Alcazaba (meaning : the fortress in arab) and part of city walls, from San Cristobal hill, Almería, Spain. Alboran Sea in background.-- Jebulon (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good work --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting view. --Kadellar (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Maire (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It looked a bit boring at the first glance (thumb) but it is really nice in full monitor width and/or 100% view. Nice work (composition, light, motive). --Tuxyso (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Tuxyso. Nice work, perhaps a bit tight in the lower right corner. --DXR (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but for me it looks slightly tilted, probably because of the coast line in the background. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Tuxyso --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Slight tilt in cw direction? Poco2 11:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2013 Longines Global Champions - Lausanne - 14-09-2013 - Kara Chad et Alberto II 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2014 at 12:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

2013 Longines Global Champions - Lausanne - 14-09-2013 - Kara Chad et Alberto II
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pleclown - uploaded by Pleclown - nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kara Chad and Alberto II during the CSI2* Final 1.45 m at the 2013 Longines Global Champions Lausanne event on the 14th of september 2013 (Renomination as the first one was cancelled due to the two active nominations restriction) -- Pleclown (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment One man, two votes, Pleclown :) --Tuxyso (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    I don't see what you're talking about :) (c/c error) Pleclown (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Junge Silbermöve im Flug bei Texel 02 2014.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 22:44:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Juvenile European herring gull (Larus argentatus) in fast flight
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Juvenile European herring gull (Larus argentatus) in fast flight
    all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressively high-resolution image for a bird -- many of our bird-in-flight FPs are much lower than this. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Colin. Jee 12:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Colin -Pugilist (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support also per Colin. Nicely captured. Diliff (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Arcalino (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Do you have another frame where the nictitating membrane is not half closed? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Up to now I did not know what the nictitating membrane is :) Unfortunately I have no other (sharp) photo where the eyes are sufficiently visible. With the bird here the nictitating membrane is imho quite transparent thus the eyes are still quite visible - with a lot of other in-flight shots you often only see a pure black eye socket. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --57.250.245.249 19:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC) IP voting invalid. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bad! :P Congratulations!! --Kadellar (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice photo and, as Colin mentioned, impressively large res. --DXR (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image -- Jiel (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow and great accomplishment. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --· Favalli ⟡ 02:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, especially given Colin's observation. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice servo focus feature and moment Poco2 11:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Lörrach - Evangelische Stadtkirche.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 21:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lörrach: Protestant Church
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support – pity the tree covers so much of the building but I think this is hardly avoidable. Moving the camera a few metres to the right might have cropped the distracting blocks out and shown a little more of the tower. The bicycle wheels not being perfectly round is caused by the wide-angle view, I presume, because the dial-plates are. Impressive picture however. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only an average quality shot, nothing special. Unfortunate light: The front part of the church which is the main motive here is in shadow. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
The church isn't in shadow, open your eyes --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
open your eyes is unnecessarily offensive.--Jebulon (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jebulon. IMHO the nominator is closed minded to any argument - he prefers not seeing the obvious. 2 hours later (as up to now only edit on an FPC page tody) - no comment. Und noch mal auf Deutsch: Der Nominator verschließt sich jeglichen offensichtlicher Argumente. Zwei Stunden später wird eine Nominierung von mir, die bereits mehrere Tage läuft, mit dem inhaltsleeren Kommentar n.th. featureable bedacht (als bis dahin einzige Editierung auf einer FPC-Seite am heutigen Tag) - da muss man glaube ich nichts mehr zu sagen. So macht FPC auf jeden Fall Spaß. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Die nachweisliche Falschbehauptung, die Kirche befände sich im Schatten, darf nicht unkommentiert bleiben. Und was meine Stimmabgabe beim Leuchturm damit zu tun hat und welche Relevanz sich hierfür ergibt, bleibt dein Geheimnis. Weiteres ist hier nicht zu besprechen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Is the church in shadow ? Isn't it ? Not my concern, but of course this can/must be discussed. But the way to discuss this is important, "open your eyes" is not acceptable here IMO. Retaliation votes ? No need to be a strict and circumspect observer to see that they exist in many cases here... Sometimes I feel that "persons" are more important than "pictures" in FPC.--Jebulon (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I make Jebulon's words mine Poco2 11:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
*sigh* -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
To maintain s.th. obviously wrong makes me uncomprehending. My advise to open the eyes is compared to this instability proper blandness. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Taxiarchos228: I have opened my eyes and as can be clearly seen by the annotation I have added to the nomination page, the facade of the main tower most prominently seen from the vantage point is clearly in shadow exactly as described by Tuxyso. I have to echo what other reviewers have said: Your comment about open your eyes is way out of line. It gives a poisonous work environment on FPC and is uncollegial. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is larger and sharper than your typical QI but isn't making me go wow either for the subject or the arrangement. -- Colin (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The composition isn't very compelling, with the tree obscuring the most interesting part of the scene. Diliff (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Geranoaetus melanoleucus, Hawk Conservancy.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 16:22:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lewis Hulbert -- Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad but too noisy considering the small size. There’s a focus problem too, the plumage on the neck being distinctly sharper than the face. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I can probably remove the noise by reworking it, I never applied any noise removal. Would the sharpness alone still be too much of an issue? --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, unfortunate light. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info reworked the image from RAW, I don't know if that's any better. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Definitely better than before, I strike my opposing vote. But the quality reaches imho no FP bar compared to other bird of prey --Tuxyso (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Turbinhuset September 2014 04.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 13:49:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Historic turbine house
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Historic turbine house in Västerås, Sweden. This small hydro power built 1891 plant is probably one of the most important buildings in the history of Västerås. In the neighboring town of Arboga was an electric company who was looking for opportunities to expand. To get the company to move to Västerås the Västerås municipality put up with land, capital, and electric power. Västerås Municipality built the turbine house and and rented it out to the company. In 1891 the company moved and changed its name to ASEA (today the ABB Group and soon grew into a multinational empire and Västerås grew into the fifth largest city in Sweden. ASEA rented the building until 1902. (when Sweden had already started to build huge hydroelectric plant in northern Sweden, of course, with technology from ASEA). The building is now a museum, located in the very center between the castle and the City Hall. I really like the early autumn light and the beautiful colors here, the composition is also chosen to include only the older buildings.
  • Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ArildV (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much in shade. I'd like to see more of the water on the right and less of the grassy slope (I appreciate this may no be practical without being in the water). Btw, why is the roof so flat and the eaves stick out so far? It looks like someone has taken a taller building and squashed it. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand your point Colin although I personally think that the tree shadow on the facade is beautiful. Regarding the architecture; the architect is unknown. The house has been described as a stylish mixture of Gothic and Neo-classical styles. The municipality wanted a representative building of course, located next to the historic medieval castle. A local national romantic architect interested in history (but not necessarily very knowledgeable) maybe?--ArildV (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the foliage at top left is more disturbing than the shadow IMO; beautiful indeed. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin; the shade is very distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, ArildV, but the shadow kills it for me too. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support we can't have light without shadows, main parts of the objects are not in shadow but are shown in good lighting conditions and the parts which are in shadows are clearly visible and not disturbing. The shadow-yelling is getting me s.th. on my nerves. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Schwetzingen BW 2014-07-22 17-04-02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 10:46:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Germany, Baden-Württemberg, Schwetzingen castle, colonnade of the "mosque"
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The image lacks detail but this is compensated by the great composition and colors, good job! Poco2 11:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Guter Blick für eine ganz besondere Perspektive. Herzlichen Glückwunsch zu diesem gelungenen Foto! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bottom part is very unsharp, cobblesones look washed. --Mile (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tolle Komposition mit guter Nutzung wiederholter Elemente. Level of detail and sharpness is not very good, but with Poco. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image lacks detail and this is not compensated by the great composition and colors. Tourists are disturbing. And per Mile. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lacking quality/sharpness is not acceptable for a FP, particularly for such more or less easy objects --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 11:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Arcalino (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe focus should have been on the first arch to avoid the unfocused cobblestones on the foreground, but I think it is good enough as it is. --Kadellar (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above -- Jiel (talk</99span>) 21:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, it lacks clarity and sharpness imo, and I don't find the subject to be too striking. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 08:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Soft, but I like it a lot --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Flaminio obelisk.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 06:53:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That picture is tight it seems obvious, then you come and ask me where's the "wow" not understand it at all. Respect other people's work, as I respect it, if you do not think this is the "wow" just say ,thanks.

File:Refugio Militar Capitan Cobo - Pico Veleta - Sierra Nevada - 2014-08-07.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 06:21:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Refugio militar Capitán Cobo
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Refugio militar Capitán Cobo are barracks used by the Special Operations Command of Spain (Mando de Operaciones Especiales) for high altitude training. The barracks are located at an altitude of 2550 m in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. The road A-395 in front shows the last public section of the 38 km long access road from Granada leading to Pico del Veleta, the second highest mountain in Sierra Nevada (3394 m). This is also the highest paved road in Europe. A special thanks to Jebulon for showing me this place, and many thanks to Kadellar and Poco a poco for figuring out what was the purpose of the building. For quite some time, I thought it was a youth hostel, LOL! Smile. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • some parts of the building are good and sharp, others are soft and not really sharp. what has happend here? --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Wladyslaw: It is a stitch of four images. My kit lenses are not as good as I would like, and they produce soft results at image borders for certain focal lengths and apertures. (A prime lens is on my wish list). That results in an uneven image quality. The pic is close to 15 Mpixels, and I think the pixel quality is sufficient for FP given the pixelage. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I am in the process of restitching, and I notice that the ueven sharpness is due to not all images having perfect focus. Luckily, there is a big overlap between images, and by using masking in PTGui, I can see that I can achieve a better technical result (and I should stop blaming my glass all the time, it is actually not that bad, when used correctly). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like it very much and was ready to support but I got a bit disappointed by the fact that reading the "Todo por la Patria" is pretty annoying. Is there a way to combine those 4 frames to fix it? Poco2 11:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @Poco a poco: I understand what you say, (I think). The first time I zoomed in I also thought: what an ugly stitching/blending error! Until I realized that the letters are suspended in a frame with space to the wall behind. And since the setting sun is coming in from quite an angle (thus the nice light elsewhere), the shadows gives the impression of ghost letters. See also the 'other version' linked to from the file page, which is a normal single shot photo. I think it would be wrong to clone put the shadows. Don't you agree?-- Slaunger (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Jebulon has pointed out a stitching error on the file page. I would like to try and make a complete rework this evening, since I have acquired Lightroom since I made this stitch, and I would like to try my new LR plus PTGui workflow on this. --Slaunger (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info @Taxiarchos228:, Poco a poco, Jebulon. I have reworked the image completely in a Lightroom + PTGui workflow. Two (upper right and lower left) of four sources images are not perfectly sharp. Using masking in PTGui, the use of these images is now minimized, the three texts are now entirely clear. There is still some residual softness in lower left and upper right corners. I think it is not so bad, but understand if you find it unacceptable for FP. I did not quite get the same white balance in this process and have ended up with slightly more vivid colors of the roof and a darker sky, to be honest I am not sure, which one is closest to the truth. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not quite sure it is FP overall, but wow that was a massive improvement in quality, well done! --DXR (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FP to me Poco2 07:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment small error(s) - a note i s addede. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) I must have had a look at an old cached, sorry, the note i deleted. Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Far much better, once old cache eliminated. You are not far from truth regarding the light if I remember well.--Jebulon (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the light and the composition very much. --Kadellar (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I preferred the colors of the previous versions, but FP anyway IMHO -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 14:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like the composition, the lightning, the soft colors, and it might possibly be atypical enough to be a wow. I note some weird blurriness on the stones below the sign "refugio militar", is it due to the sitching? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @Christopher Crouzet:: Thanks for your positive comments and also your observation about blurriness. I agree there is softness under that sign. If you read some lines above, I think I have also acknowledged this problem in my newest revision and explained the origin: It is not due to the stitch in itself, but is caused by the fact that not all source images have perfect focus. In the newest revision I have tried to minimize the presence of these soft areas, but they are not entirely gone, and it annoys me too. I had chosen autofocus, but should have gone for manual focus instead. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I didn't read all the comments in depth, my bad. I find the picture more interesting than many other featured buildings out there, so no reasons to oppose. Thanks for your efforts! -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, Christopher Crouzet you did not oppose, but voted neutral, which was very understandable given the actual quality issue you have observed. But I am of course happy you have chosen to reconsider and change to support. Thanks! - Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I meant to say “no reason to not support”! :) -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Building 54 CEF Ottawa.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 02:59:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Heritage House (Building 54) at Central Experimantal Farm in Ottawa, this is a National Historic Place of Canada
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The rear view of Heritage House (Building 54) at Central Experimantal Farm in Ottawa. It's built in the Queen Anne Revival style and used to be a home for senior farm staff. This building is a National Historic Place of Canada.

If you have ideas or advice, how to make it better, I'm happy to hear about it. Created by MB-one - uploaded by MB-one - nominated by MB-one -- MB-one (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a nice subject, but the trees in the background are too dark to make the difference between the house and the background. Try at another daylight. -- -donald- (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. I like the image, but a new image with -donald-'s suggestion might be better. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the advice. I reworked the shadows to achieve better contrast between trees and building. --MB-one (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
That looks better imo, struck out weak. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Important parts of the building are in shadow. IMHO that not really helps for a good overall impression of the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The picture has a great atmosphere -- Jiel (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Luz Metro Station of São Paulo.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2014 at 01:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Luz Metro Station of São Paulo
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Wilfredor, can you explain your intentions with this picture, because clearly it isn't a standard exposure and if the station was actually that dark, people might fall onto the track. I see from other images in the category, that the platforms get very busy with people waiting (something that is barely visible on the right hand side here). It's hard to appreciate the architecture of the roof. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your comment Colin (I send a hug o/). I wish to convey the admosfera this terminal on a Sunday afternoon, I wanted to convey the feeling of loneliness, give a picture of this terminal as it was 100 years ago when everything was calm and relaxed, I used the technique of backlighting for obscure details of our current society, the bright colors were too expensive at the time. This photograph is an invitation to stop time in a terminal that always looks in motion, this photograph is a reminder of what once was this terminal. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark for any emotions. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Given that the station's name means "light", this choice to shoot it in this melodramatic way is very ironic. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Light exists thanks to the darkness before the light came darkness. Darkness always been associated with fear, death, however, for me darkness is synonymous with life because through obscurity can paint light. The darkness is as light mechanism recognizes itself. You are very perceptive. I liked this comment despite being negative. This comment is just an additional information and my intention is not to discredit your vote. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. It is a very nice shot, very arty, would make a great background for the opening titles of a certain kind of movie ... but it doesn't help a viewer who wants to know what the station looks like inside, i.e. someone reading an encyclopedia article or Wikivoyage page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Fugro Explorer.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 23:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:2014 Nysa, Bazylika św. Jakuba i św. Agnieszki, witraż.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 22:06:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Mercado Central, Valencia, España, 2014-06-30, DD 116.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 22:02:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior view of the dome of the Central Market (Mercado Central), a 100-years-old modernist building located in Valencia, Spain. The market contains 400 stores that employ approx 1500 people, and is the biggest in Europe dedicated to fresh products.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Interior view of the dome of the Central Market (Mercado Central), a 100-years-old modernist building located in Valencia, Spain. The market contains 400 stores that employ approx 1500 people, and is the biggest in Europe dedicated to fresh products. All by me, Poco2 22:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 22:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Mesmerizing! ArionEstar (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some minor quibbles—a little light bleedthrough in one of the windows, and the crop is just a hairsbreadth away from being too tight for me. But sometimes true art is that which stops just short of perfection. (And I like that it looks like a giant watch, without hands or numbers, this way). Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Daniel Case. Maybe some chromatic noise in the darker part at left. I like very much the short descriptions provided in the nomination, always interesting.--Jebulon (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done, among other improvements, thanks Poco2 10:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I added coordinates. --Kadellar (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you! Poco2 13:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Baños Romanos, Bath, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 39-41 HDR.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 21:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Great Bath, part of the Roman Baths complex, a site of historical interest in the city of Bath, England. The baths, based on the local hot springs, were built during the Roman occupation of Britain and has become a major touristic site.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View of the Great Bath, part of the Roman Baths complex, a site of historical interest in the city of Bath, England. The baths, based on the local hot springs, were built during the Roman occupation of Britain and has become a major touristic site. Note that this picture is a HDR needed to increase the range due to tricky lighting conditions. All by me, Poco2 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 21:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I'm not sure if I like this angle that much as the water loses its colour because of the reflections, but it's well captured. Especially as you managed to get a view of it without any tourists in the view! Amazing. I've been there 3 or 4 times now and it's always been extremely crowded. Is the timestamp correct or did you forget to change it when you were in the UK? :-) I didn't know it was open so late. Diliff (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    The time stamp is correct. There were a bunch of tourists, but probably very few in comparison to the normal visiting hours, since nobody expects that it's open then. We also got late to Bath and were surprised that you could get in until 9 pm and stay until 10 pm! as you can see here. The problem about going late is the lighting combined with the fact that they will not let you use a tripod, so you have to be imaginative about how to solve that :) Regarding the POV I have to say that before getting there the shot from this angle was my favourite and after taking photographs everywhere in the site I think that I was not mistaken. Poco2 08:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for letting me know. I prefer the view from the upper level because the Georgian side of the baths and of course the Abbey is visible (I think it adds to the atmosphere), but fair enough. :-) Your image shows a better perspective of the Roman side. I've seen some really lovely images of steam coming off the water (I guess taken in colder weather) which is also great for the atmosphere. Diliff (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    Well, in this shot my intention was to show the Roman Baths as far as I can show them the way the used to be, without having any other architectural elements built 1000 years later (like the abbey). The combination of the abbey and the baths is also nice and for that I have different pictures, but here I wanted to keep it roman, show lots of water as symbol of the bath and play with the reflexion. I am convinced that the place has lots of potential for great shots like the one you mention with steam. I will probably have to come back for that and at the same time I encourage everybody to visit Bath, the city, not only the Baths, is amazing and full of interesting spots to capture. Poco2 10:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First of all category has to be corrected ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done, thanks for the hint! Poco2 08:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition and colors. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Arcalino (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Probably the best pic of the series. --Kadellar (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Maire (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --· Favalli ⟡ 02:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose visible unsharpness on both sides of the image, the colours look very strange and washed out to me, for me n.th. outstanding --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:View of Angers on the Maine river from the castle.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 22:01:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Angers on the river Maine in France
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • nice view, but not really sharp --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to the lack of sharpness which could not be compensated with a stricking composition (the wall in the foreground is disturbing). I wonder whether it would have been possible to the picture further to the left to have a better view of the river and even show a nicer perspective a bit for of the scenery on the left Poco2 11:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There Is nothing wrong with the sharpness of the photo even if you can't read the number plates of the cars. Technically speaking there is no blur, the focus is correct the aperture is good (f/9), the exposition time is 1//500. I can't comment on the composition, mostly a matter of taste--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry Wolfgang, but I agree with Wladyslaw. It may not be a focus problem but it’s so soft for its 12 mpix I wouldn’t even call it a QI. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Et plus que l'air marin la douceur angevine (Joachim du Bellay (1522-1560). Yes, but too soft for me too.--Jebulon (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I might be a bad looser but u are pixel nerds ;-))

--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Hereford Cathedral Choir, Herefordshire, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 21:27:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hereford Cathedral Choir
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ArildV (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 11:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Always great and very beautiful. @Diliff I'm curious, the undulations of the shadows in the ribbed vaults are deformations of accommodation of the arches? -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 15:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I believe they are. The building is of course very old and the deformations are because of this. Or maybe an imperfect construction. I'm not sure. But I do know they are not because a problem with the stitching. Diliff (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Ok, it's an interesting detail of the structural point of view, and was well evidenced, very good, ty -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 14:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC). P.S. @Diliff stitching error ? unlikely. Your work is technically detailed and executed consistently and carefully, that is not a compliment, it is a fact. I feel their work as precious (this is a compliment, if I can : ) ), ty -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 21:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Arcalino (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support And again... Great! :-) Btw, I like the very discreet "lamp". ;-) --mathias K 13:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Maire (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Winchester Cathedral High Altar, Hampshire, UK - Diliff.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 21:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Winchester Cathedral High Altar
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 11:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tuxyso (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Arcalino (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Very, very impressive... May I ask, how many partial images have you combined in order to achieve the final outcome? If you don't mind disclosing your arcane secrets, that is... --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
    • I don't mind, they aren't as arcane as they might seem. :-) I believe it was 45 images in this one. 3 rows by 3 columns, and five exposures for each of those. Diliff (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice details! --mathias K 13:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Maire (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Savannah Anole.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 18:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by 0x010C - uploaded by 0x010C - nominated by 0x010C -- 0x010C (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 0x010C (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor detail (due to severe noise reduction I suppose), still very noisy background. Would prefer to see the entire animal too. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Acqueduct arch, Alcazaba gardens, Almeria, Spain.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 16:33:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

arch, alcazaba gardens, Almeria, Spain
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In the gardens of the Alcazaba of Almeria, Andalusia, Spain. The arch is a remain of an ancient arab aqueduct-- Jebulon (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems underexposed, and I really am not excited by the composition. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With Daniel. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose maybe I have missed s.th, but this is a partial visibel ordinary gate covered with plants and grass, see n.th. special in the object or composition. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @ Tuxyso: Clin --Jebulon (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Jebulon: may you comment also the other oppose-votings or am I s.th. very special? --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
        • The question is to answer it. But you are s.b., not s.th. --Jebulon (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
          • you seem to need some coaching: please make a difference between "to be s.th. special," but: "to be s.b." thx --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Certainly a nicde moment having been captured but the pic is by no means outstanding. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 11:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Stift Göttweig Kaiserstiege Fresko 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2014 at 15:36:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ceiling fresco of the Imperial Staircase of Göttweig Abbey by Paul Troger (1739): Apotheosis of Emperor Charles VI.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ceiling fresco of the Imperial Staircase of Göttweig Abbey by Paul Troger (1739): Apotheosis of Emperor Charles VI. Photographed, uploaded and nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ArionEstar (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support although I feel like the lower right corner is darker than it needs to be, i.e. that it is darker doesn't seem to be intended by the artist. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is the north-east corner of the fresco, so maybe it is due to uneven illumination. However, as far as I can remember, the light was quite diffuse there. The same effect is visible on all photos I took, and also on photos from other sources. Unfortunately I cannot check on-site in the near future, but I will do further investigations and apply a correction, if necessary. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Tallinn Toompea Upper Old Town 2013.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 19:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tallinn Toompea Upper Old Town
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created/uploaded/nominated by Ivar (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 07:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love that this is a moonrise photo. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Xicotencatl (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice POV of the old town. Looking at it I almost have the impression that it is in the middle of a forest isolated of the civilization Poco2 11:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice light, good view, high quality. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "The composition isn't very compelling, with the tree obscuring the most interesting part of the scene." Jee 02:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! --Kadellar (talk) 12:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:GandM Purist-Grace match cricket balls.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 18:58:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

GandM Purist-Grace match cricket balls.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kasir (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Perfectly executed image, a great illustration of the particularities of these balls. Ariadacapo (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - High quality, nice composition and a useful image. Pugilist (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Panorama Egmond aan Zee Leuchtturm 2014.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 14:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view over Egmond aan Zee with J.C.J. van Speijk lighthouse
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice stitch and very impressive resolution and overall quality. The Leuchtturm is leaning a bit to the right. Is it leaning in reality also? (difficult to find good vertical alignment points on the conically shaped mast). -- Slaunger (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • IMHO OK as it is. If you draw a vertical line through the red top the line reaches exactly the middle of the lighthouse. I've vertically aligned to the buildings at the background and the pano head was perfectly adjusted. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Weird, it does not reach the exact middle on my monitor.Smile First I got, an impression of leaning by just seeing it in thumb. Then I thought it could be some kind of perceived leaning, so I checked by panning over an approximate 50% view and look at the edges of the base of the tower and where the corresponding vertical lines intersected the top. The intersection points are not symmetrical, which I think they should be. I will try to indicate with an annotation, although it is hard to get sufficient precision in drawing the box. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree that the remaining building like the church have very good vertical alignment, but the lighthouse protudes much higher and it is really not possible to properly insert vertical alignment points as there are no vertical lines in the lighthouse to align with, and it is my experience that this can easily lead to extrapolation errors although the base align well vertically. Its difficult, its difficult. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed, Slaunger. It took me a lot of time but you had been right, something was wrong there. The problem is that near the light house there are only very few (and short) vertical lines in the background. The solution was to manually add a vertical line with manually estimated coordinates (without having such a long vertical line there). IMHO it is better now, please take another look. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done! I send you a mail shortly after my initial comment offering to send a crop showing it, but you found out yourself. It was subtle to see, I agree.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very little barrel distortion, the sea at the edges is at a higher elevation. I agree that the lighthouse seems leaning. But all the others verticals are straight, so for me it is leaning in reality. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 17:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure if it is barrel distortion, but I have now fixed the sea level at both sides. Please take another look, Christian (if you have time) and give me a feedback if the elevation issued is fixed for you. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
At full resolution I moved the cursor of the window from a side to the other : The sea at right is straight but is higher than the sea of the left. The level of the sea at left is more straight than the first version but is always a bit leaning especially near the land. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 06:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done It had been only a few pixels, Christian - should now finally corrected. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Perfectly straight, however the right is always a bit higher than the left... -- Christian Ferrer Talk 07:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
IMHO only pixels, with regard to the size of the pano neglectable. Probably a rounding error in Hugin :) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Something I forgot to ask, when I got distracted by the lighthouse leaning, which is now fixed... The sky alternates between blue and more white: Did you use a polarization filter? -- Slaunger (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Slaunger, using a polarizing filter with Panos is a no-go. If you take a look on the EXIF data you can see that the angle of view is very wide - about 270° - the setting sun is left to the left edge, and right to the right edge thus this is the explanation for the alternating brightness. Exposure time was identical with all shots, light situation did not change during the shot. The brighter areas in the middle are imho due to the opposing sun. Don't expect a 100% homogeneous sky with such a wide view. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      • (ec) I agree completely. I had actually looked for FOV information but overlooked it in the EXIF. I just wanted to be sure it was not due to using a polarization filter as that could have given such an effect with smaller FOV. With a FOV of 270° the effect as shown here is as expected and is unavoidable. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      • (EC) Add: If you take a look on this 360° pano by Böhringer you can observe a similiar effect: You have two bright spots: The direct sun (and the areas around there) and a brighter area exactly opposed to the direct sun (180° to the direct sun). In my pano the brighter areas around the direct sun are visible at the left and right border, the area 180° from the direct sun is visible in the middle of my pano. All in all I see no problem there. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
so ist es --Böhringer (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 19:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Frankly, I'm sorry but I'm not sure this ordinary (IMO) landscape deserves a so huge work. The technical performance is probably very high, but I feel no wow in any way (and I prefer remain silent about sharpness...).--Jebulon (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Every motive deserves huge work, but time is often limited, Jebulon. If you are on vacation you can take the time, wait for golden hour light and make a highres pano of an (imho) not ordinary landscape. BTW: A panorama of a similiar position with overexposed sky and bad light was sold in the local shops for 300 euros :) Now a much better pano is freely available. Isn't it a benefit? I do not understand your last sentence: "and I prefer remain silent about sharpness". If you see seriously problems with sharpness I can answer: The pano shown here is an unscaled (!!) sensor resolution version - imho the optical performance of the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 I've used here is impressive. Normally panoramic views (also all of my former panos) are normally downscaled (default setting in Hugin is e.g. 70%) thus they look surely sharper at 100% view. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Tuxyso, I think, on sharpness, that Jebulon's comment is saying he would prefer not to engage in yet another FPC discussion over "pixel-peeping" reviews and whether to downsize for FP. Let's agree to disagree on that one and move on. [but I agree with you that the picture is impressively sharp for a non-downscaled pano] -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Colin, got the point now. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks, Colin, that is exactly what I meant (sorry Tuxyso for the misunderstanding, actualy this part of my comment was not for you)--Jebulon (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --· Favalli ⟡ 00:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 11:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose n.th. featureable --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Laitche (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Cheetah at Sunset.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 07:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Cheetah silhouetted against a fiery sunset, in the Okavango Delta, in Botswana.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me-- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Truly stunning, but given the marginal resolution, it should be razor-sharp at full resolution, which it really is not. I think the softness is because you have hit the diffraction limit with an aperture of f/17. Would have been better with a larger aperture, ISO 100, and a shorter shutter time. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Changed my mind after considering the creators reasonable comments on my talk page regarding my original assessment and the conditions of the shot. The timing and atmosphere of the shot mitigates to some extend the not so impressing technical quality and the "thumbnail" resolution. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I think it worth quoting what Arturo wrote on Slaunger's talk page (which is a reminder imo of the usefulness of saying something when nominating: "By definition, a picture of a wild predator after sunset has important technical challenges, mainly the almost inexistent light, and the fact that a cheetah on the prowl will stay on top of the termite mound for a second, not even two. You are lucky if you see it, compose and fire. There is no time to change settings. Honestly, I think this image is unbelievably atmospheric, one of the most powerful in my portfolio - you can almost hear the crickets, smell the savannah, feel the determination of the hunter. And as such, I expected it to be evaluated on its artistic strength, the story it tells, the feelings it conveys, not by the sharpness you would expect in an arquitectural image." I agree that it is one thing to expect a careful consideration of shutter/aperture/iso for an architectural image, but when capturing a fleeting and magical moment like this, one never gets a second chance and fiddling with one's camera may just lose everything. In terms of the "'thumbnail' resolution", Slaunger mentions, I think there are mitigating factors for wildlife photography. The image was taken at an effective (fully-frame equivalent) focal length of 200mm with a 10-year-old camera. The image resolution is about half the sensor resolution. I don't know if this image is cropped, but heavy cropping is more likely in a wildlife photo than one taken in other circumstances. -- Colin (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A silhouette is more about recognisable shape than fine detail. Sure, one can find flaws, but it is a great moment captured from just the right angle of view. -- Colin (talk) 20:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you Slaunger for changing your mind, and thank you Colin for your comments. I have uploaded a full-res file, at 4000px, instead of 1920px as before. I think this will improve resolution but some border softness remains as the light was really almost inexistent when the cheetah showed up. The image is very slightly cropped, perhaps only 5% or so. --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Since you have gone all in now! -- Slaunger (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support What a great picture! Very nice! --mathias K 07:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great, though a bit soft due to the circumstances --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! --· Favalli ⟡ 00:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a great one! The settings are though pretty awkward for a telephoto shoot (f/17?) Poco2 11:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks everybody for recent support votes... To Poco, you are of course right, the settings were very awkward indeed... and not on purpose. I think I have never been shooting in the bush at F17... you rarely need more than F10 with wildlife subjects (except macro, or closeups of animals with very long snouts...), and you rarely have enough light for that at dusk... This cheetah took me completely by surprise, I was driving back to camp, almost at night already, when I saw it on the mound. I could only stop the car, grab the camera and shoot. I had probably changed the aperture by accident when leaving the camera on the seat....
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think sharpness can be ignored in a case like this. Excellent shot. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Lüdinghausen, Burg Lüdinghausen -- 2014 -- 5502.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 06:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Burg Lüdinghausen in Lüdinghausen (Germany) at the blue hour
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 06:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 06:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice composition and sky. The photo appears to be exposure fused from more than one image as there are ghosts on the right hand side from vegetation being placed differently in different captures. Also, the glare from the sidelamps on the path to the building are disturbing, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review. A small remark: It's a tone mapped image from a HDR image. IMO it's nearly impossible to take a HDR image of branches in the nature without movements. But the branches are not illuminated and IMO they are not disturbing.--XRay talk 10:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, HDR mapped and not exposure fused:) Anyway, the same effect regarding the ghosts. I agree you cannot avoid such effects unless you are in conditions of no or very low wind, and I also agree this aspect is not that important. I would also not have opposed due to that little detail in itself. For me the biggest issue is the glare from the lamps. --Slaunger (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Perspective looks strange Jiel (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is nothing special. There is a long bridge in front of the castle. It's the normal view.--XRay talk 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice idea and well done. The glares could be a bit less dominating but that doesn’t impair the image too much. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Slaunger, sorry. + halos along the roof (oversharpening ?), and green CA near the right chimney. The sky looks unnatural to me. Excellent composition though, and very nice place.--Jebulon (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Green CAs are reduced/removed. Thanks for your advice.--XRay talk 15:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support For the nice atmosphere and interesting subject and in spite of quality flaws and a centered corridor (would have preferred that the POV is not in the middle of the corridor bridge) Poco2 12:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:View from Imperia Tower Moscow 04-2014 img12.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2014 at 05:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mercury City Tower

Proposed category : Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 05:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for nominating. Yes, there is going to be FoP in Russia from October 1, yes it is also retroactive, and yes it does not require taking the photo from the street. --A.Savin 13:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question There is a section (see annotation) in the middle, which looks "weird" to me (but not necessarily "wrong"). What is it? Is the image a crop or have you downsampled? -- Slaunger (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Hi. See note. I'm not sure. The only big modifications I did was the removal of some glass reflections. --A.Savin 14:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the reply. It is good. Regarding FoP: Should we just pretend it is October 1 now? The sun does rise sooner as compared to my location, but I did not know you were days ahead:) -- Slaunger (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the FoP question, I had of course the option to wait with the uploading, but other views I took then were all general cityscapes and with this single one I didn't want to delay several months. Again, FoP is retroactive; even if the file was deleted, it had to be undeleted after 10-01. Regarding the nomination, I'm not the nominator and I would have waited of course; but there are few days left, so in the end it's just a hairsplitting. --A.Savin 15:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment – The image description should identify the dominant subject (Mercury City Tower?), not just where it was taken from (Imperial Tower). Quality image of half a building. --Kbh3rdtalk 14:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Done. --A.Savin 15:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent, maybe the horizon in the middle is not a perfect illustration of the rule of thirds. But let's celebrate the new FoP in Russia ! (The strange thing annotated appears on many other pictures -see Google- of this skyscraper, there is no wrong manipulation or so).--Jebulon (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, at least for now, due to the bottom crop, it's too abrupt for my taste. The building has for sure FP potential, actually some pictures on the web are pretty amazing. Do you have a way to show more of it at the bottom? If not, why? Poco2 11:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
It was taken from a glazed visitor's deck; the lower part is not visible there. --A.Savin 16:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
That's too bad, the crop ruins it for me Poco2 09:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-09-07 10-57-15 Le-sculpteur.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 18:50:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Le sculpteur.

File:2014-09-07 10-37-55 La-Resurrection.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 18:48:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

La Résurrection.

File:DFC Sete v FNC Douai Coupe de la Ligue 2014 t140222.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 17:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

DFC Sète's Dražen Kujačić dribbles the ball in their quarter-final against FNC Douai of the 2014 League Cup at the Georges Vallerey swimming pool in Paris.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really nice picture with a high educational value and good dynamic -- Pleclown (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is allways something special in Jastrows photographs. -- Smial (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image ! -- Jiel (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support indeed great sport action (by @Jastrow: again!) --PierreSelim (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Smial.--Jebulon (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Could anyone please explain me what's special in this photograph? I'm definitely not the best at interpreting things in photographs and all I can see here is a guy swimming with a ball in front of him and I don't feel much intensity like I would have expected. Isn't it a "common" shot that could be taken in any water polo game? The composition also buggers me a bit, I wished the picture was centered differently and a bit more stretched horizontally to emphasize better the horizontal line created by the subject. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Puente Pulteney, Bath, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 51.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 14:17:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hey, nice finding! :) Thanks Tomer Poco2 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ArildV (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 1bumer (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 07:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll ignore the clipping and Symbol support vote.svg Support. :) — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me a good photo with a good composition, but I find the light rather dull, and there is something artificial looking with the texture of the brick surface of the Puente. Not among the very best IMO. Maybe too aggressive luminance noise reduction? -- Slaunger (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    No aggresive denoising was applied here. I see your point, but making out of it an oppose is pretty tough Poco2 19:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for info. The light is for me the biggest issue. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But I prefer pictures 52 and 53. --Kadellar (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Schwetzingen BW 2014-07-24 10-50-59.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2014 at 13:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Germany, Baden-Württemberg, Schwetzingen castle
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit soft regarding the relatively small size but well composed and lit. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, but only a half bush at the right. And only a small Wow.--XRay talk 06:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jiel (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks underexposed to me. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 11:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good QI, but not outstanding enough for me. --DXR (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to agree with DXR, sorry, Poco2 12:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Jardim Botânico Fanchette Rischbieter em Curitiba 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2014 at 23:06:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Bubo September 2014-4a.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2014 at 22:24:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An European Eagle-owl (Bubo bubo) in a falconry centre, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Tricky. It’s certainly not bad but there are some issues I dont approve of: 1. crop (too much space on top, too little on right); 2. perspective (seen from above makes the bird look smallish and a bit funny); 3. motion blur in plumage. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • You are quite right about the crop. I have nominated an alternative version below. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The quality is impressive, getting sharp feathers at this resolution is really something. That being said, I also dislike the point of view from above. It's essentially a portrait, and taking it from significantly above eye level doesn't work in my opinion. The background is a little distracting (but not too much), the light is ok. For the crop, I would probably prefer it if the bird would be looking into the picture (i.e. more space on the right than on the left). — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support impressive indeed, but per others for the crop : just a little more space at right, the not croppoed version is not enough cropped at left IMO. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternative version[edit]

Bubo September 2014-4.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Same picture as above, not cropped. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I’d still crop a bit off on the left and top to de-center the subject and make it look into the image. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much empry space (especially at left). -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, Zamek Tarnowskich 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2014 at 09:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Vihula mõisa tuuleveski 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 18:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vihula manor windmill
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created/uploaded/nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good. --Kadellar (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see nice clouds, a not very impressive wind mill in my eyes and a grassland, good quality, top QI, but no wow to me --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good light -- Christian Ferrer Talk 05:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 10:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Too much empty/useless grass in foreground, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The grassland takes about 1/3 of the image height, I don't want to crop it. --Ivar (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • The grassland takes about 1/3 of the image height This is one reason why this image composition isn't so succeed. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice ! Jiel (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Nice lighting and clouds. But this is an example of a case where (in my opinion) the rule of thirds should not be followed. If a third of the picture is empty space, that's too much. I would crop some of the grass and perhaps a little bit on the right as well. --King of ♠ 05:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree with the right crop too.--Jebulon (talk) 09:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better. --King of ♠ 01:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for the time being. Per King and Jebulon. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Arcalino (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New crop uploaded. --Ivar (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Happy to see that crop suggestions were followed, and provided subsequent supports ! As for me, I see a very better picture, but I'm still not convinced by the subject--Jebulon (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Duvbo Metro station September 2014 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 17:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Duvbo Metro station, Stockholm. Expsoure fusion from a single exposure. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ArildV (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice perspective, image impression and motion capture. maybe you can improve the signs a little bit? the letters are not so sharp as they could be (as non moving parts) --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The motion blur of the train is great, but personally I don't like the slight blur of the people in the picture, especially the guy with the camera. Either they should be sharp or more blurry with movement. -- KTC (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • As a photographer you don't have a choice, people are moving in a subway station. The only way to avoid blur of the people is to use a very high ISO, but that will affect the quality negative. Longer exposure (with very small aperture=diffraction) is no guarantee for more blurry people (a person can stand still, another only move his head once, and so on). --ArildV (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
      • As a photographer, you do have a choice. You have the choice to wait and wait and wait until all the stars align perfectly and you get the shot. ;-) I say that as a joke, but it's also true. There does have to be a practical limit though, if this is the best result of half an hour of waiting then fair enough, you did your best. I suppose the biggest obstacle to this photo is getting the two trains coming in at the same time and everyone still at the same time. I can imagine that would be very tricky. Diliff (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Fair enough Diliff. I stayed a long time at the station, and only once came two trains simultaneously. I know many of my pictures of Stockholm subway is relatively empty of people, I avoid rush hour traffic and photographs often departing train heading towards the city center (fewer people are leaving the train on suburban stations). But the point here was to get the two trains. Regards--ArildV (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 18:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KTC, sorry. The guy is really eye catching.--Jebulon (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berdea (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jiel (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I don't think the blurry people is enough to put me off. Although if I have to find one criticism (I usually do!), it's that parts of the image are a bit lacking in contrast. The darker parts of the image look fine, but the seating area, the lighting/air vents at the top and the signs could do with darker blacks and more contrast IMO. Just a minor issue. Diliff (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is already about as empty as a metro station can get. --King of ♠ 05:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Arcalino (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 1bumer (talk) 16:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ariadacapo (talk) 08:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

File:2014.06.07.-03-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim---Tagpfauenauge-Raupe.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 15:33:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I'm not sure because of the stem in the foreground. But I'll never know what you think when I don't dare a try. ;-) All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hockei (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support visualy the stem is not so disturbing : the first time I opened the image I was so much attracted by the caterpillar that I did not seen the stem... -- Christian Ferrer Talk 05:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded a version with a changed crop. It can be that it looks better. If not, I'll revert it to the first version. --Hockei (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment if I may: the right stem should stay for three reasons: The other stem (unfocused) stands out too much; sheet looks unfinished, loose; the stem helps to identify the blurred in the context. I would cut off only the right side of stem (keep the bud). -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 20:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Certainly you may. :-) Thank's for your advice. You say about what I think. So I changed the crop again. --Hockei (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems underexposed, and of course is in the shadow of the leaf so not best lit. I don't see anything here that raises this photo above the many other photographs of the caterpillar, or among our best. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Appearance is not reality, Colin. This picture is not underexposed. This caterpillar is black. And this photo shows the animal in it's real living environment. Maybe I should take and set it on a stem into the sun next time? --Hockei (talk) 14:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I am aware the caterpillar is black. You could present us with a completely black picture and claim this is what it looks like in the real living environment at night. So that's not a strong argument. The level of exposure and lighting are chosen to display the subject to best effect. I think neither are optimal here. But my main concern is that at FPC one needs to compare the image to its peers. And when one does that the picture doesn't stand out. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I look at a picture, see and decide if it is excellent or not and I never compare with others. This is the right way IMO. I don't consider this here as a competition. --Hockei (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Hockei, the definition of this forum is: "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 isn't a Flickr "fave" or a Facebook "Like!" but a serious judgement of whether this picture is considerably better than its peers and deserves to sit among other such images as our finest work. Therefore if you don't compare with others, you really aren't doing your job. The world is full of "nice" pictures. File:2014.05.25.-05-Kirschgartshaeuser Schlaege Mannheim--Tagpfauenauge-Raupe.jpg is better lit, though a less interesting pose. The lighting issue with this photograph is easily resolved by the use of a reflector (even a white card would do) which is pretty standard kit for such photography. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Colin, Please stick to facts and don't suggest the people here I would be active in flickr or facebook just because of my point of view you don't like. --Hockei (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
              • I have absolutely no idea what you are taking about. -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
                • I said it due to your comparison of my reviews with the facebook-"like"-button. We should leave it at that. This leads to nothing. --Hockei (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice details, precious moment, ty -- Lauro Sirgadocontribs 22:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose underexposed --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
it's a little better but it's easy to do more. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Archaeodontosaurus, I increased the exposure once more. It looks quite good to me and hope it is enough now. --Hockei (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Might be slightly underexposed but only slightly. Could easily be fixed by pushing the shadows a bit from the RAW file? Diliff (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done New version. But I personally still prefer the darker version. It is a matter of taste I think. --Hockei (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Brandenburg St-Katharinenkirche 19 (MK).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 15:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of the Katharinenkirche
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Yeah... a church interior! Bored of? I hope not! ;-)
I think it is pretty obvious who was my ideal when I was shooting this one?! :-) My last visit in this church is a while ago and the actual high-res-multi-exposure-church-interior pictures presented by Diliff and DXR where so inspiring that I want to try it for my own in this church again. This nominated result is the most ambitious picture I've made so far. It is merged of 135 single pictures and for those who like, here is the full res ~344mpx version. But instead of the big one I want to nominate this downsampled version because I think it is the best compromise between resolution, size (compression) and quality.
I'm aware that (sadly) the nominated picture isn`t perfect and there are some minor stitching errors which, thats what I think, dont distract that much from the overall view. But thats just my opinion. Also the brightest lights in the windows where not exposed perfect because of shooting "just" 3 exposures with +/-2.0EV... That's too little I've learned! ;-) So far from me, now I´m very curious what you think about this try of mine. c/u/n by me, --mathias K 15:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- mathias K 15:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice disciple. Still, one thing to improve imo, about composition: there's too much floor and the crop of the ceiling isn't optimal. I guess you were more worried about exposures and stitching than about general composition. --Kadellar (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Youre right about the composition thing and the crop at the ceiling. Sadly there isn`t any more room way to the top (still not enough pictures ;-) ?!). At the bottom my intention was to give the left column a little more room to the bottom. I´ve already tried a crop like your sugestion and with the cut on column it feld like the picture was too compresed horizontaly then. Anyway, thanks for your review! --mathias K 17:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support... but... with only 3 exposures at +-2EV, as you say there isn't enough dynamic range. I usually do 5 images with +-9EV. ;-) I didn't see any stitching errors on my first look, so probably they're not that bad. Also, why the angle and the cylindrical/Panini projection and not rectilinear? Maybe the angle of view is too high. I do think Church interiors look better when taken from the middle of the interior so that the symmetry is expressed. Diliff (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks! My first intension was to take this picture from the middle of the interior, but than I realized that the candelabra would be right in front of the organ. Thats why I choose this point of view. --mathias K 21:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a good enough reason, and I guess I would have done the same actually to avoid the candelabra. But I would have chosen a camera position much closer to the seating so that it didn't feel so distant to the viewer. I try to fill the frame with what is interesting, and a lot of foreground empty floor space is not so interesting (but I admit, some of my images such as this recent nomination have the same issue). I don't think anything is really gained from being as far back as you were. I think an ideal camera position might have been close to where the flowers are on the left side. And I still think rectilinear would have been better. :-) Diliff (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Diliff, thanks a lot for the tips! My intention when shooting this one was to capture as much as possible visible from my viewpoint. But I think youre may be right that a) this isn`t the best viewpoint and b) I didn`t have to show that much of the interior. Sometimes less is better... ;-)
To the projection: during the processing in PTGui I thought that rectilinear may look a bit awkward cause of some visible streting at the corners. But now I think when I cut out the stretched areas it could look a bit like youre "sugestion", closer to the chairs, less column and it would look more focused on the interesting things. I will give it a try! So thanks again, mathias K 14:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 19:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pretty much per Diliff. Nice but perhaps still a bit of room for improvement, though I get the argument with the candelabra. Probably better to trade res for large bracketing, if you have to (and can, camera-wise). --DXR (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC) BTW, it is surely too much praise to be mentioned in one breath with the master ;-)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thank you for this nice image, and of course no, I'm personaly not bored with church interiors. I notice that some supporters here support..."but". All these "but" make me oppose, for instance :I don't think anything is really gained from being as far back as you were. I think an ideal camera position might have been close to where the flowers are on the left side. And I still think rectilinear would have been better by Diliff are for me two good reasons for oppose, and I share the opinion. The left bricks are too much IMO, and the "curved" threshold disturbs me. The overall sharpness is not so good as I expected in thumbnail view. The light of the window is not very well managed (lack of detail: one can see the little window panes below, but not above). I like the original composition though. Sorry for this vote, I feel a bit embarassed with it, because I know pretty well that I'm not able to take the same kind of shots...--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hate to raise this point again, but I really hope sharpness was not a major factor in your decision, because it is excellent at 30MP or so, still much more than most of the uploads here. I guess " I think we should not consider Diliff's work as the 'church interiors bar' " will be pretty tough to handle in practice. --DXR (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jeb, you don`t need to apologize for your vote! It is well founded and I can understand your points. OK, per DXR I hope the sharpness issue isn`t that big. But anyway your vote is OK for me and I think every founded review is helpful. So thank you. ;-) --mathias K 14:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that you and DXR are right that the sharpness should not be a factor in opposing because it is clearly very high resolution and we should not be encouraging downsampling as the only way to impress here at FPC. But Jeb's compositional criticisms are fair and are valid reasons to oppose IMO. As per my comments, I too think the image could be improved with my suggestions but I guess unlike Jeb, I thnk it is still 'good enough'. Diliff (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
(Sorry for bad english) How do I "judge" a picture ? I just open it by clicking on the thumbnail until the full size proposed, and see what is given to me ! And I'm sorry, what I see in this case is (for my taste), not as sharp as it could/should be. About "encouraging downsampling": Don't worry, those who think that downsampling gives a better result will continue to do so, and my oppose vote here will not change anything. Alas. But why uploading very high resolution pictures if they are not sharp enough ? I think it is an interesting question about the final/ultimate purpose of our work here... Must we absolutely chose between 'sharp' and 'big' ? And at the end, I'm not sure that the 'good enough ' concept is compatible with the FP (the best of the best) concept. Thanks for this interesting discution.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Just to make sure, of course I do not want to tell you how to vote, you know that very well and I agree that the compo here is a matter of taste. But I think that the way you review sharpness does indeed encourage downsampling. I completely understand this when we talk about 10 or 15 MP, but here your criticism becomes more "it's an inefficient way to use commons" than "the image is not sharp", and I do not think that should be held against the image. The decision how to size a panorama is much harder than a normal image, imo and we do have to make some trade-off between size and sharpness. --DXR (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Agree with you, it does encourage downsampling because with reviews like Jebulon's, it would be much easier to downsample it and have a sharp 30 megapixel image and then nobody could complain about the sharpness. And probably nobody would ever know that it was downsampled either, they would simply be impressed by the sharpness and detail. I downsample my images too, but I am careful not to downsample so much that I lose real detail. I don't do it to impress voters on FPC, I mainly do it because it's easier to manage the files, and because the edges of my images are less sharp than the centre due to the wide angle of view (edges will always be softer for this reason) and because f/13 is a bit softer than lets say f/5.6 or f/8. Even though I usually downsample a bit, I wouldn't usually encourage others to do it because it's easy to go too far and lose detail and because it shouldn't be necessary to win votes. Voters should consider whether it is sufficiently detailed for the subject, not what the sharpness is at 100%. That of course doesn't mean we can't consider and discuss the softness at 100% and whether the right settings or equipment were used, but it shouldn't be a major reason for a vote by itself. In fact, if I didn't downsample my images, Jebulon may oppose my images too as they probably begin life about as soft as this one. :-) I use one of the sharpest prime lenses in existence so it isn't a question of using a good lens, it's just that a typical f/13 image is not very sharp to begin with, and then when you distort the edges with reclinear projection, it will never be as sharp as any of us would like. Diliff (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
OK. I understand what you write. Again, this picture, as it is, is not sharp enough to me. Opening a picture at full size is a bad way to review ? I'm afraid we disagree here about sharpness, risks of downsampling, and evaluation. Let's continue to live together, peacefully, with that. Please notice that I opposed for other reasons too, and consider that I agree with the fact that downsampling is a bad thing. --Jebulon (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to live together peacefully. I don't want to prolong the discussion too much but just one last set of questions for you to answer so I can understand why you disagree (and also maybe to make you think about why you disagree too)... This image is about 85 megapixels, right? If it was downsampled to 40 megapixels and was sharp (ignore the other compositional issues that we discussed), would you support it then? And if the answer is yes, then why would you support it and not the less sharp 85 megapixel image? The detail is the same (maybe even a bit more detail in the 85 megapixel image), so why is it so important to evaluate it at 100%? Of course we all do it, because it is the highest level of zoom possible before the image pixels begin to become larger than the screen's pixels and it is what our image viewer/browser defaults to. But really, 100% is an arbitrary zoom level. We use it to see 'what the image is made of', but it isn't necessarily the best zoom level to appreciate the image or its real sharpness. Compare this to how we would evaluate the detail of a large billboard poster on a street. A poster usually has much more detail than a 6x4 photo but at a close viewing distance (the equivalent of viewing images at 100%) the 6x4 photo is surely going to look sharper. We might look at a 6x4 photo from a few cm away but we would never normally look at the poster at this distance, so why should we do the same for this image which is the digital equivalent of a poster? What I'm saying is that yes you can review images at 100% if you want, but you should not look only how it appears on the screen at 100%, you should look at how the sharpness relates to the resolution and view it at a zoom level that is appropriate. Only then can the connection between sharpness and low resolution (or softness and high resolution) be broken. Diliff (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First: I appreciate the effort, which has gone into the capture and processing of this image! It is tedious work, and I guess several hours must have been used on it (it would for me). However, I do not like the composition that much, and I can echo the aspects regarding this by Jebulon. Also, the exposure control, while good is a bit lacking at the windows (if the compo had been great, this aspect alone would not have lead me to oppose).
Regarding sharpness and resolution, I find it is more than adequate considering the huge pixelage. I find it is a recurring flaw in reviewing images to open them at 100% and think they should be razor-sharp without at the same time considering their resoltion. Sure, if you nominated a 4 Mpixel image it should, as it is the total amount of information in the image, which counts, but the best balance between resolution and information is best achieved by retaining a little pixel softness. I find that this balance is just perfect in the nomnated photo. You can always downsample, the reverse you cannot do. And if you want to print in large scale, it will always be optimal to have the full pixelage to avoid visible pixelation. Say, for instance, if this image was printed as a 50' image (along the diagonal), in approximately 80×100 cm format, the width of the individual pixels would be less than 0.1 mm or 260 PPI. This is way smaller than what you can resolve by eye at a typical viewing distance of 50 inch display. (At least I do not watch television as at viewing distance of 15 cm). --Slaunger (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
One last thing. I do not agree with Jebulon on weather the "sharp at 100% review philosophy" leads people who would not otherwise downsample to downsample. In my 20 Mpixel Alhambra nomination, which all reviewers appear to fancy, I can honestly say that I have downsampled the final stitch more than needed and more than what would be optimal for large scale printing simply to avoid the silly pixel peeping at 100% comments. I have as such pixel-prostituted myself. Shame on me!--Slaunger (talk) 09:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The new crop works better for me, although it still lacks some wow for me. Changing to neutral. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info @ all: Kadellar,Diliff,Martin Falbisoner,Uoaei1,Christian Ferrer,DXR,Jebulon,Slaunger: I´ve uploaded a complete rework of this pictured where I try to get the composition a bit more pleasant and tried the rectilinear projection. And what should I say... I think Diliff was right! :-) So please have a look If you still like it or maybe even like it more. ;-) Thanks @ all! --mathias K 12:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • I like it more, but of course I already supported so it doesn't change my vote. ;-) I did spot a few little stitching errors when reviewing this image, but very insignificant. Did you use a panoramic head or just a regular tripod head? Well done anyway. Diliff (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi David, thanks again. This one was taken with a selfmade pano-head. I've builded me one a couple of years ago but used it not very often. It is not comparable to a "real" one but it works pretty well so far. I will make a pic and show it... --mathias K 18:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Leviathan1983 You can crop the bottom, no problems. But the crop is now too tight at the edges for me, I suggest you propose an alternative. For now I remove my support. -- Christian Ferrer Talk 14:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    I see that you have 7 votes, so it is maybe not necessary of to propose an altertnative only for me... So sorry to have strike my support but I shall have preferred a wider view than the last version. :) -- Christian Ferrer Talk 17:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Christian, thanks for your understanding. You can't do it right to everyone... But anyway, thank you for your review! --mathias K 18:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That made a bigger difference than I thought it would. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 14:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The new version is totally fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Striking my oppose. The new version works for me. But folks, we still have a problem about "what is sharpness"...--Jebulon (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support for the light management. Another one who got Diliffitis? :) Poco2 12:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Blackwall DLR station MMB 15.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2014 at 14:57:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A DLR train at Blackwall station.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by myself. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -mattbuck (Talk) 14:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice idea but not the best accomplishment, many lights are clearly overexposed and dismal the image impression --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    Just a question, and apologies to everyone else here, but Wladyslaw, you clearly have a problem with me, and you demonstrate this very well in many locations. Please answer me this: what did I do to you that pissed you off so much for so long? -mattbuck (Talk) 20:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    Just my answer. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Wladyslaw. --AmaryllisGardener talk 00:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk 11:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I think there are too many blown areas. A few lights in the background don't worry me, but it's also in the foreground and the sum of the bright surfaces make up a large part of the photo. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 16:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Julian H. --LivioAndronico talk 23:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a good picture - I like the colour and composition but doesn't reach FP standard. The blown highlights are extensive and the focus is too close resulting in all background being blurred but the nearby motion-blurred train is in focus. Perhaps worth trying again at this location and try during the blue hour for some sky colour too. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jiel (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)



Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Sat 13 Sep → Thu 18 Sep
Sun 14 Sep → Fri 19 Sep
Mon 15 Sep → Sat 20 Sep
Tue 16 Sep → Sun 21 Sep
Wed 17 Sep → Mon 22 Sep
Thu 18 Sep → Tue 23 Sep

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

Tue 09 Sep → Thu 18 Sep
Wed 10 Sep → Fri 19 Sep
Thu 11 Sep → Sat 20 Sep
Fri 12 Sep → Sun 21 Sep
Sat 13 Sep → Mon 22 Sep
Sun 14 Sep → Tue 23 Sep
Mon 15 Sep → Wed 24 Sep
Tue 16 Sep → Thu 25 Sep
Wed 17 Sep → Fri 26 Sep
Thu 18 Sep → Sat 27 Sep

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)
  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/September 2014), 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/September 2014.
  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.