Commons:Кандидати за изабране слике

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Alemannisch | asturianu | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | English | فارسی | 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)‎ | +/−

Ово су кандидати за изабране слике. Уочите да ово није исто што и слика дана.

За архиву претходних номинација, погледајте: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log

Постоји такође хронолошки списак изабраних слика.

Contents

Формалности[edit]

Номинација[edit]

Ако мислите да сте нашли или направили слику која може да се сматра вредном, онда је додајте испод у секцију номинације, на врх стране путем овог линка.(Упутства)

Пре него што то урадите, осигурајте да сте унели одговарајући опис слике, као и прикладну лиценцу.

Молимо гласајте користећи реч из вашег језика или одговарајуће шаблоне:

  • За - Yes, Sim, Ja, Oui, Sí, Kyllä, 支持 , Tak,...
  • Против - No, Não, Nein, Non, Ei, 反对 , Nie,...

Такође можете користити шаблоне {{Oppose}}(Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose) и {{Support}}(Symbol support vote.svg Support). Такође можете изразити да волите слику са {{I love}}(Nuvola apps package favorite.svgSymbol support vote.svg Support) или да сте неутрални {{Neutral}}(Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral).

Молимо покушајте да укључите неколико речи о томе зашто вам се (није) свидела слика, посебно када гласате против.

Политика за кандидате за изабране слике[edit]

  • На крају гласања, резултати ће бити одређени петнаестог дана од номинације.
  • Номинације од анонимних корисника су добродошле
  • Доприноси у разговорима од стране анонимних корисника су добродошли
  • Гласови анонимних корисника се не рачунају
  • Номинације се не рачунају као гласови. Подршка мора да буде експлицитно изречена.
  • Номинатори могу да повуку своју номинацију било када.
  • Запамтите, циљ Викимедијине Оставе је да пружи централну базу за слободне слике које би се могле користити у свим Викимедијиним пројектима, укључујући и могуће будуће пројекте. Ово није проста остава за википедијине слика, тако да о сликама не треба судити према томе да ли одговарају неком пројекту.
  • Слике могу да се уклоне са списка уколико немају подршке (не рачунајући номинаторов глас) после седмог дана.

Кандидат ће постати изабрана слика у складу са следећим условима:

  • Одговарајућа лиценца (наравно)
  • Најмање 7 гласова подршке
  • Однос гласова за и против мора да буде најмање 2:1 (двотрећинска већина)
  • Код две различите верзије исте слике, не могу обе бити изабране, већ само она са већим бројем гласова.

За упутства о томе како се процесују старе номинације, погледајте Template talk:Featured pictures candidates#What to do after voting is finished.

Кандидати за уклањање статуса изабране слике[edit]

Током времена, стандарди за изабране слике се мењају. Може бити одлучено да за неке слике које су некада биле "довољно добре", ово више није случај. Овде се наводе слике за које сматрате да више не заслужују да буду изабране. Ово захтева двотрећинску већину (и минимум од 5 гласова) за уклањање статуса. Ако нема 2/3 за уклањање, слика остаје изабрана. За ове радње, гласајте са {{Keep}} Symbol keep vote.svg Keep (заслужује да остане изабрана слика) или or {{Delist}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist (не заслужује да више буде изабрана слика). Молимо пружите и линк ка оригиналној номинацији за изабрану слику (појавиће се под "Links" на страни са описом слике). За остало, иста правила важе као и изнад. Молимо користите овај линк како бисте додали новог кандидата за уклањање статуса

Освежавање стране: purge this page's cache

Кандидати за изабране слике[edit]

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 11.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 16:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view from the path between the Malga Mare Power Station and Lago Lungo in Stelvio National Park, Italy

File:Helgolandpanorama vom Pinneberg.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view over Heligoland from it´s highest point, the Pinneberg (61.3 m)

File:Draco volans 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Common Flying Dragon, Draco volans (Museum specimen)
  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a dramatic picture even though it's a museum specimen, so I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support, but I'm sure you'll have complaints about the lack of sharpness of the head, so you might try your hand at sharpening it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done You are right, sharpness of the head is corrected --Llez (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Watford Jon (Argy Bargy) IMGP4754 smial wp.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Watford John of London punk band "Argy Bargy"
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I like the "Hey, you!" gesture and expression. What are we looking at that appears to be a narrow diagonal shaft of light? Is that exactly what it is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jake Kiley (Strung Out) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP4953 nmz.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jake Kiley of "Strung Out" at Ruhrpott Rodeo festival 2013
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Smial - uploaded by Smial - nominated by -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Regardless of the motion blur, I'm inclined to support because of the expression, but similar question as for the other one: Is that a reflection of him and the guitar in the upper left corner of the frame? If so, fine, and I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Dome Cappella Chigi, Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017 -01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex completed in 2004. It was planned by Murphy/Jahn and - involuntarily - helped foster the strongly developed anti-highrise-stance in Munich's populace. I've taken a little series of pictures showing the colorful LED illumination of its exterior, of which I like -01 best, although that was a tough choice. Btw., I used to work in one of the towers about 10 years ago. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cool. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I thought to nominate it. --Yann (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really great! --cart-Talk 10:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:58:56 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex completed in 2004. It was planned by Murphy/Jahn and - involuntarily - helped foster the strongly developed anti-highrise-stance in Munich's populace. As suggested by Ikan, I'd like to nominate a set of three pictures showing the colorful LED illumination of its exterior. Btw., I used to work in one of the towers 10 years ago. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, solely on the basis that the three are too similar in my opinion to all be FP, while the base image might be FP worthy. It took me a second to see the illumination differences. As the color is only a narrow strip in the overal image, it is technically colorful, but not in the most impactful way. The sky and the rest of the building is dominating here. An example of a truly colorful building would be Munich's Allianz Arena, were a set nomination showing off the colors would make much more sense, just by the total area of color occupying the image. – LucasT 07:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I guess you're right, Lucas. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Hinckley Daysailor 42 by D Ramey Logan.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hinckley Daysailor 42
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and such by -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works for me. The wave breaker adds an unusual element to this photo. But please add a geotag and much better description plus categories. Since you have entered this in the "Sports" FP category instead of "Objects/Vehicles/Sailboats", I guess the pic is from some competition and that plus location should also be explained. --cart-Talk 09:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1/500 not fast enough to freeze motion. Charles (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergwandeltocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel (1,839 m) in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italy) 23.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:34:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mountain Walking Tour from Pejo to Lago Covel (1,839 m) in the Stelvio National Park (Italy). Views of the surrounding landscape. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice color depth and well composed --Don (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice colors and stunning view. It reminds me of those pictures they had on chocolate boxes when I was a kid. --cart-Talk 09:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice pic and beautiful have a lady here --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is a pretty spectacular picture, especially the lighted rocky mountainsides, and it's at its best at full size. I see the one tree in the near foreground all the way over to the right as a slight imperfection, but I doubt that cropping it out would make the overall composition better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like a Romantic painting --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Salar de Tara, Chile, 2016-02-07, DD 64-67 PAN.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2017 at 22:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the Tara Cathedrals (left) and the the Tara salt flat in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panoramic view of the Tara Cathedrals (left) and the the Tara salt flat in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile. All by me, Poco2 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Another beautiful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Spectacular, though there's a slight ca in the clouds (top/left edges green and right magenta). On another note I think just the small portion of the road and the rocks above, with the clouds behind would be enough alone to make this an fp; but this has so much more. KennyOMG (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Any color fringing is very very minor and requires you to be actively searching for it. Beautiful pano. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works very well! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 09:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:TS-11 SPARK Aerobatic team White-Red Sparks Danish Air Show 2014-06-22.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2017 at 22:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White-Red Sparks
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Personally, I like the composition, light, and colors on this one taken a beautiful summer morning as the bi-annual Danish Air Show 2014 was about to begin. The pose of the pilot with one shoe tip towards the ground showing a self-confident pilot, probably proud to be on his countrys show team (this is the White-Red Sparks from the Polish Air Force), the other pilots and crew discussing the events to come. There is a tranquility before action mood to the scenary, in sharp contrast to the noise level, which was very high as all the aircraft had their jet engines on. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition, but there's too much posterization on the planes. Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really cool photo. Can't see any posterization though. What I can see are shadows and reflections on some planes from the adjacent planes. There are also discolorations from fuel, oils, overheating, repairs with mismatched paintjob and everything that comes with maintaining planes like these. Sure, the colors can look blotchy when you see the planes on the ground, but who cares, it doesn't matter when they are up in the sky doing their thing. :) I just wonder if it is possible to get rid of that little round thing on the tarmac far right in the photo? --cart-Talk 00:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose - It strikes me that between the shallow DoF and the heat distortion from the hot tarmac, almost nothing is sharp or in focus. I agree with the nominator that the standing pilot's pose is a compelling element, but he's so blurry that he doesn't really serve as any sort of main subject, which is what I would have liked to see. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Juliancolton, unfortunately --El Grafo (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:1 Singaporeskyline9g.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 23:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Marina Bay, Singapore 2012.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Special place, light well managed. -- Yann (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Impressive indeed but there's some weirdness going on in the sky, seems like color banding or maybe stitch lines? It's very much visible and I doubt could be fixed without starting over from the raw files. It's also leaning to the left ever so slightly but visibly. KennyOMG (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yeah, I was going to comment about the strange shapes in the sky and water from stitching problems. Those do have to be fixed before this photo could be featured. Chensiyuan, do you have the time to fix those problems in the next week or so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment on first sight it's great - oh no, sorry: It's a terrific view, - but even if you can tame your stitching software, only some of the buildings are sharp, others not at all. --PtrQs (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with others. It needs restitched. Perhaps also Smartblend to hide any stitching issues better. Also, please don't use AdobeRGB for the web; use sRGB. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg digression - I thought only people from the Pittsburgh area used the "needs +-ed" construction ("the car needs washed" [or "warshed"]; "that bug needs killed"). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
No Ikan, we do in Scotland too. Charles (talk)
@Charlesjsharp: A lot of Pittsburgh/Western Pennsylvania's original European settlers were Scots-Irish; that probably explains that. In rural areas you still hear older people talking about how they might need to "red up" the house before company comes, which is also Scots-Irish. However, I don't know if "yins" as the second-person plural is something you'd hear in Scotland (you will in Pittsburgh). Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Provisional support on fixing whatever errors there are. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Wat srichum 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting view, - but I think that color fringes had to be fixed --PtrQs (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to insufficient image quality --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per fixable CA issues noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Tomer T: I really like this photo with its unusual perspective and seeing that Khunkay isn't very active at the moment, I have fixed a version with most of the CA removed and a very, very slight noise reduction. Do you want me to upload it on this file? You can always rollback the edit if you don't like it. --cart-Talk 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Of course. Tomer T (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I like that picture, so let's have a look. --PtrQs (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, let's see if this is enough or if I botched the job. Remember to purge your cache. --cart-Talk 20:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In the fileliste I see 4 pictures, wherein #2 and #3 have a more copper-like gold and a violet sky. By the color of the sky I would guess, that the brownish gold is more realistic. Is it possible to combine the original gold-color with the good No-CA work? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Versions 3 & 4 are exactly (or should be) like ver 2, but with just two minor corrections on the CA of the statue. It is a curse that you always find something you've missed as soon as you upload a file. :-/ The first part of the CA removal was made in Lightroom with additional manual removal in Photoshop. It is possible that LR did something with the hue when it removed the CA. I'll see if I can put back the right hue. Files also "change" when you upload them since the different programs and browsers fiddle with the color. --cart-Talk 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed I've nudged the spectrum two steps back towards the original brow-gold as requested. I think this is as far as I want to mess with this. Someone else can take over or revert if necessary. --cart-Talk 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question BTW: is it possible to describe what we see in real english? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --cart-Talk 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:PhuSangWTF 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bokeh looks somewhat weird but doesn't detract from the overall image. KennyOMG (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Upper left part is somewhat dark, maybe this is improvable. The description says "English" but it obviously isn't. Should be fixed as well. Otherwise an excellent picture which would get my support. --Code (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dark left part attracts the attention to the right part, and that is most important part. Please don't reduce the left darkness too much --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Something different, thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Picture is fine as it is, but the "English" description should be fixed. --cart-Talk 10:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment description fixed. Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I've decided I like this enough to support a feature. It's best at laptop screen size, not at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WTF could be changed --The Photographer 14:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Funchal Carros do Monte 2016 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 17:12:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Drive on traditional basketwork sledges operated by "carreiros" for tourists in the city Funchal, Madeira
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a nice idea but execution is lacking in my opinion. I feel the context is missing because the vehicle the photographer is sitting on is not in the frame, so we as the viewers are sort of lost where we are here. Secondly, the three men closest are all blurred, but it doesn't look good IMO because the ground is not blurred enough to suggest any significant speed, so it looks (!) like camera shake blur. Composition is also not the best with the two men left and right cut off, although the overal symmetry is nice. The scene has potential, a wider angle lens would have helped a lot here. Also, there are noticeable CAs on the white clothes and the rope. – LucasT 19:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think Lucas said most of it, there are also the leaning verticals and the overexposed areas on the white clothes. The men pulling are also in the zones of a photo where focus tends to be less good than in the middle of the pic. --cart-Talk 20:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 20:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I withdraw my nomination.--Karelj (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni) male head.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 09:48:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Head of male Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This noisy hornbill can only be found in the North East corner of Uganda and the North West corner of Kenya. All created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Charles (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose over-processed maybe trying remove background noise resulting in a dropshadow effect in the beak border (I added a note) IMHO and maybe I'm wrong, you applied a noise reduction in background dividing in layers the bird and the background for apply a Gaussian blur in the background, however, in the low layer (a copy of the front layer) there is the bird that now is showed like a dropshadow in the current image. My suggestion is apply a simply noise reduction in the background but not dividing in layers. Also too space on image top. BTW It's a beautiful image and remember me another nomination --The Photographer 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would prefer to see nature/wildlife photos not photoshopped to blur the background. It is very hard to do convincingly. The edges are a bit obvious. -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Colin, it could be allowed, however, using a better technique. IMHO. Take a look to for example. The problem come when you are changing colors or you are using some layer denoise technique and not a specialized denoise tool like neat image. --The Photographer 14:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This looks more than just denoising. More like trying to increase the background bokeh blur. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Well it was exactly what I was telling you, please, take a look to the image source too. I removed it because it was distracting, however, now I don't know if it's acceptable. What do you think?. Thanks --The Photographer 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with the above, has the look of one of those "artistic" Photoshop filters which is never a good thing. Detail on the bird is nice though. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aside from the badly executed blurring/whatever already mentioned, I would have liked to see a bit more of the bird's neck. Now it looks as if it is striving to keep its head above the bottom line of the photo. With such a heavy beak, almost (vertical) centering the eye is not enough, the centre of gravity of the subject is too low. Sharpness otherwise as great as we've come to expect from Sharp Photo. --cart-Talk 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Badly executed blurring. edit: No with the new versions uploaded, I come to wonder what caused the drop shadow that partly caused all the oppose votes. – LucasT 19:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @The Photographer, Colin, Juliancolton, Lucasbosch, W.carter:@Milseburg, INeverCry: I never mind constructive criticism, and there is clearly a drop shadow which could be removed by reprocessing. I may be sensitive, but I do resent all these incorrect assumptions about my processing and your suggestions of blurring. As Commons does not allow a direct upload of the .CR2 file from my camera, I have uploaded the RAW file saved as a .jpg with absolutely no processing. Do please have a look. Charles (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Charles, thanks for uploading that unprocessed file for comparison. Please be assured that I never meant to personally criticize your editing techniques. I did believe that some kind of extensive manipulation had been done to produce the hazy borders, but I see now that was not the case. Taking a closer look, it's a similar effect to what I've noticed on my own relatively high-ISO images from older crop-sensor cameras. The end result is the same, though, and I'm very much in agreement with Cart's comments about the composition. Even if it isn't quite what we look for in an FP, it's still a remarkable image. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I assumed from The Photographer's comments on Gaussian blur that you'd applied a very strong blur. Certainly the margin between the bird feathers and the background was rough and demonstrated detail the background did not have at all -- but it seems this was just noise. So while you haven't blurred it to increase the background bokeh blur, you've certainly blurred it far beyond the necessary for noise reduction. To the point where the background got posterised and artificially plastic looking, and the bird looked crudely Photoshopped onto it. I'm afraid this just adds further to my complaint about reviewers who pixel peep -- it not only causes people to downsize unnecessarily, or to leave, but also to clumsily blur images when there was in fact nothing much wrong with the noise levels. The degree of noise in your "direct from raw" would probably diminish if you applied a sharpening mask to the default sharpening used by Lightroom or ACR. Then only a smidgen of luminance NR might help. Really, we are ruining perfectly good pictures in order to satisfy people who look at pixels rather than pictures. Fullscreen on a 220dpi monitor, the noise here is barely visible, certainly not troublesome, and the image wonderfully sharp. I would like us to reach a point where the amount of noise here, on a 20MP image raised no oppose votes at all, much like a small degree of CA or a couple of barely visible dust spots shouldn't be a reason to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with Colin that there is nothing wrong with the background in the "straight from RAW photo". That looks natural and perfectly fine no need for any extra work. There is no strange shadow around the beak either. Still not enough neck on the bird for my taste though. ;) Since I've learned more about post-processing after hanging out here at FPC, I don't go as heavy on the NR as before. Most NR on backgrounds can ruin the authentic feel of a photo. --cart-Talk 23:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your courage to upload the original photo and accept our criticism with maturity. I uploaded a version applied noise reduction, however, I rollbacked myself --The Photographer 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the others on the amount of noise in the raw file - very minor and no bar to a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
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 6 opposes already in the first day - not much chance of this nomination succeeding 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.
lNeverCry 21:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@INeverCry: I think you may have applied fpx too hastily and not in accordance with the FPC rules. You may have been influenced by the 'herd instinct' votes and you have not given me the opportunity to upload a new version. Charles (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Charles, actually, I think it would be best if you closed/withdrew this nom and started a new one of the new version of the photo. You know with the "/2" thing you can read about on the COM:FPC right above the nomination box. That way you can start with a clean slate and don't have to ping everybody, etc. --cart-Talk 11:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Good idea. People can then oppose on the basis of the tight crop etc. if they want. Anyone volunteering to process my RAW file (which I can mail)?

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Charles (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Met rijp bedekte katjes van een els (Alnus) 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 06:20:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Betulaceae.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info With hoarfrost covered catkins of alder (Alnus). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment another great example of highly reduced, modern Dutch still lifes! :-) I'd suggest to adapt the white balance to the wintery scenery though - here it appears much too warm. An ice-cold blueish hue could further underline the intended mood, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The grayish white appearance of the photo is sufficiently frosty for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think it would be FPC sharpness even if white balance/tone sorted. -- Charlesjsharp 09:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition isn't wowing me. Agree the light looks too warm. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose I don't mind the WB, but composition is somewhat lacking. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. WB. correction Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin and Julian regarding the composition. lNeverCry 20:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative, another version[edit]

Met rijp bedekte katjes van een els (Alnus) 03.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info With hoarfrost covered catkins of alder (Alnus).--Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan above. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Yes, I like this one, too, but I'm not sure why the people who don't support the other version would support this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (By the way, English word order would be "Catkins of alder (Alnus) covered with hoarfrost". English may be at base a Germanic language, but our grammar is very different from German, Dutch, and I suppose Frisian.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support also ok! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't find it special enough for FP. The subject is centered in the frame and it provides no wow for me. It's a beatiful sight in nature but the photograph is not impactful IMO. – LucasT 09:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:OSIRIS Mars true color.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 21:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

True color image of Mars generated taken by the Rosetta spacecraft
I have no idea, the ESA caption doesn't mention it. It's about the right size to be Deimos, but Deimos is in a nearly perfect equatorial orbit, and due to this I can't think of a combination of angles that would make appearing where it does in the image plausible. My guess would be a bright star or planet in the background. It could also be a camera artifact I guess. A2soup (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing. Charles (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Any photograph like this of a planet in our solar system is going to have a high degree of uniqueness, though I'm not blown away by this one. The colors are nice, though the resolution and detail isn't anything special, especially when compared to other similar photos of planets, like this one of Pluto from 2015. Sorry. WClarke 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's because this image was taken in 2007. However, there are no FP or even QI or VI images of the entire planet with details. I would Symbol support vote.svg Support featuring this until we have a better one, and probably even after that, as a historical image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 02:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree that resolution leaves quite a bit to be desired, but stunning nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 09:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Dull lighting, no wow for me. Also per WClarke. Yes, it's special because of the subject, but as a non-expert this is not interesting to look at. I find this falls into the category of the more boring planet photos and I would gladly support the more exciting ones out there. – LucasT 19:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You could do a good service if you can find some higher-quality NASA photos of the entire planet of Mars and upload them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, I never commented on resolution, but on lighting and overal photographic qualities. I realise that we get what we get here and it certainly is a novelty subject, but I feel this is better suited as VI and comparing it with majority of the space FPs we have I just find it not exciting enough. Looking at the other replies below, there are "better" images of Mars out there. I'm fine with being the only opposer though. – LucasT 09:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lucas, you've stated before, if my memory isn't playing tricks with me, that you don't have much interest in astronomy. It looks like most of the rest of us do. And novelty is quite an important reason for a feature. It's way too soon to be jaded with sizable full-planet pictures of Mars! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are several big Mars photos on NASA pages (1 2 3) , but how do we know if they are free? --cart-Talk 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, under U.S. law, all government pictures that are not classified (or in the case of C.I.A. photos and the like, declassified) are freely usable by the public. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note that all those images are mosaic composites of low-altitude images taken by orbiters, as you can easily see by looking near the edges where the mapping of the images onto a globe breaks down. The level of detail is obviously very high, but the verisimilitude, as you might imagine, is lower. This is, to my knowledge, the highest quality image of the entire planet taken from the perspective depicted.
I would also add that the second image linked above, despite its wide dissemination, is actually highly misleading, as it maps images from a significantly less-than-global portion of the Martian surface onto a globe, distorting the size and location of the features depicted (primarily the Valles Marineris), as can easily be seen when referencing a global map of Mars or either of the other images linked above, which both show Valles Marineris in a true global mosaic. The imagery for that mosaic was obtained by the Viking 1 orbiter (the first US Mars orbiter), which orbited at a 39.5˚ inclination and was therefore unable to image the entire surface - it was the best they could do at the time. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A2soup, thanks for the explanation. Nice to get all the ins and outs of these pictures sorted out. It also confirms that I should stay away from uploading space pics, since I don't know enough about it. :) But they are pretty and interesting! --cart-Talk 10:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Râşnov Citadel (Rosenauer Burg) 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 18:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Râşnov Citadel, Romania
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment shame about the people. Charles (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Generally well-done, but as a slightly unsharp (especially the left edge) 7 MP image with no mitigating factors or the feeling of "wow, we have to promote this even if the quality is a bit lower than usual." -- King of ♠ 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KoH --PtrQs (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per King. Seems to me that the image might have had some serious overexposure on the building which was brought under control at the cost of looking overprocessed (something about the blue in the sky doesn't strike me the right way). Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it; the composition is good and the path with people walking up and down reminds me of a picture book -- Thennicke (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no pseudo sharpness visible. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:HibisGate3Dareios1AmunRaMut.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 15:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Relief of Persian king Darius I in Egypt

File:Sish Mahal, Jodhpur Fort.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 05:49:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sheesha Mahal, Mehrangarh fort
  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Below the level of sharpness we typically expect of interior FPs. Overall I think the lighting is unbalanced; the bottom is a bit too dark for the composition to work in my mind. -- King of ♠ 07:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, essentially per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per KoH. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
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 as per above comments, also incomplete nomination. Yann (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2017 (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.
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

File:Philips Series 7000 shaver head.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 22:15:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A new Philips Series 7000 shaver head, photographed in the style of a promotional image. All by me -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 35 frames... great! --Ralf Roleček 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but I must point out that there are a few minor blurry spots on edges and overlaps, because I spend some time retouching my recent own stacks correcting these things. – LucasT 22:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ...and sufficiently clean too. This is one piece of machinery you don't want a dirty close-up of! ;) The surface lends itself very nicely to such a photo. --cart-Talk 22:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just one little thing that could be corrected: Down center there are two places where you can see some flesh-toned reflections, probably from you. It would look nicer if those were in grey tones instead. --cart-Talk 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Cart, Lucas: I've updated a new version with the reflection removed and the blurred areas fixed with sharper frames. -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Frank. I'm a wet shave man myself, though with more modern technology than your link :-). My wife thinks I'm completely bonkers, spending the evening in the kitchen taking dozens of photos of my son's shaver. I showed her the result and she said: "It's a shaver. So?" *sigh* -- Colin (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great texture. -- King of ♠ 00:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot! I guess I´m gonna have to learn focus stacking :) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Enthusiastic support Utterly stunning result! Was it really necessary to shoot 36 frames? What's the (average) DoF of each image? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per everyone else - really impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice shoot and professional and I think that your quality is improving Diliff Colin. Clean and perfect, I added a note to let more space there --The Photographer 12:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Photographer, I'll check but I'm pretty sure I have no more of the image at the bottom, to change the crop. I agree I could have included a bit more when I took the photos. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you should do it again because the image is already done, however, it's a minor problem --The Photographer 12:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

:*Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question why, Daniel? I'm really interested because you also had the option not to vote at all. I understand that overly technical pics tend to polarize more than other subjects. Something along that line? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Martin, I suspect the reason has nothing to do with this nomination, just me. So would appreciate any comment by Daniel unrelated to this nom, be made on Martin's or Daniel's talk page. -- Colin (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe he's not sure if support or oppose for some wow raison. --The Photographer 12:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No doubt FP. --Pugilist (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:PlayaVarese-04920.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beach of stones before Varese beach
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me, somewhat dull lighting, the clouds are a bit interesting, but the brown water destroys it and I see no clear subject. It looks like a just decent tourist shot to me, sorry. – LucasT 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition but the blown highlights on the surf and building are too much ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky does not really impressed me --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request What is the standard for sky expected here? Ezarateesteban 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7673.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nitpicks like the noisy upper edges aside, I'm sadly not wowed by it enough. It's a decent photo though. I just feel like a different camera position and composition would have emphasized the specialty of the wall better. – LucasT 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even if it lacks the drama associated to this place, it is a pretty good description picture. The details on the wall are interesting, and even the people give a sense of the place, in a more mundane manner. The photo teaches. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Tomas --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I haven't decided how or even whether to vote on this photo, but in some ways, I prefer several of your other photos of the Kotel to this one: File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7689.jpg has a satisfying near-rectilinearity as compared to this one's slant, and I like the motion of the men walking toward the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7691.jpg, which concentrates on the women's section, shows the pitchers for the blessing on washing, putting the wall in a different context, though there's a dust spot that should be cleaned toward the right above the wall; File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7690.jpg shows men praying and touching the wall from an appealing angle. None of the photos are perfect and all can be critiqued, but all are good and different. However, compared to the others, I can't think of anything that strikes me about this one as special. So that's likely to result in either a non-vote or a mild oppose vote from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lucas. --Karelj (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lucas; a very static image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is not a bad raw material for a great photo. I think that a crop would give it a much more forceful look, the angle and the wide floor makes it a bit touristy. See note. I downloaded it and tried it, it came out very nice. Try it. Anyone else agree? --cart-Talk 20:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Good eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, not for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Why not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-11-30 Cimitero Monumentale Milano RR2 7543.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:42:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cimitero Monumentale in Mailand
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cimitero Monumentale in Mailand - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a well executed photo and a worthy QI, but it misses the wow factor for FP status. You might find the sight interesting and impactful but the photo doesn't bring this out for me I'm afraid. – LucasT 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - Could be a bit sharper, but the composition works for me. I like the contrast of the Cimitero Monumentale with the modern buildings to its right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 08:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. It seems the building is cut in half at left. Yann (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that way because it is. You could let me know if I'm missing something, but the way I see it, the only question is whether the result of that is good. You find that it isn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow per Lucas. I get the feeling the goal was the contrast between the old and new buildings balanced by the similar form of the old building and the Unicredit Tower (as well as one of the other buildings whose names I know but cannot remember and do not have enough time to look up right now). But there's too much going on to get it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I only mildly support this photo, and there's no argument with "no wow", but what do you find overly complex about this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: If you imagine the flower bed and empty driveway/whatever space at the bottom cropped out, along with some of the left (maybe I'll have to make it in a note), you get an image with a lot more harmonious vertical forms, and the similarity I noted is more evident. Daniel Case (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
OK. See what I mean? Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Arguably less interesting, but yes, also simpler, and I do see what you mean. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:RPM abstract at night.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

RPM gauge abstract
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles (maybe there is a better category)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by WClarke -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've been back at it trying more abstract photography, and have been evolving more in the previous weeks, including off of what I nominated last week. I this photograph I tried to make my subject more recognizable, while still bringing abstract elements into the photograph through the blur and distortion. As with my other photograph I nominated, this may see opposition, though thought it was worth sharing. Thanks. -- WClarke 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It works for me. It looks like a still from a time travelling movie. Exciting, ratteling, blurred. (And I feel bad opposing abstracts, I feel some have a place as FP) – LucasT 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question sorry but to me its only a unsharp picture? --Ralf Roleček 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ralf Roleček: Maybe it's not for everyone; it is experimental. The blur and distortion is for artistic and aesthetic effect, and I still think at the very least it is interesting to look at. I'm trying to explore something beyond what I've done before, and personally think I'm starting to get some interesting results. And though I respect your opinion, similar arguments ("it's only..." or "it's just a...") have been made for a long time against more abstract and conceptual art. Thanks. WClarke 22:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support ok, why not? --Ralf Roleček 07:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It becomes an abstract art photo if it somehow stimulates your fantasy. This is clearly telling me: "Houston, we have a problem." --cart-Talk 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Cart! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, like Ralf, I just find this a blurred figurative photo, not something I really consider an abstraction. Also, the feelings that it gives me are eye strain and wanting to yell "Get out of the car! You're drunk!" Perhaps for a movie, this could be a useful blurring for a drunk driving scene, but for abstract photography, I want to see non-figurative shapes and lines. [shrug] That could be my assumptions and limitations speaking, but you could also call it something else: My personal taste. So I salute the fact of experimentation, but not this result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That is kind of the two places I've been stuck between: making it appear abstract enough to pass off a as abstract photography, while at the same time making sure it doesn't appear random or boring. Thanks. WClarke 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. The drunk driving thing was one of my first thoughts... I've never done such a horrible thing myself of course... Face-tongue.svg lNeverCry 08:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not for me. Charles (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This might not be a good sharp image (don't think it was even planned as one) but it is giving an old sci-fi film feel. I personally liked it. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose might be a good photo, but not a FP for me. -- -donald- (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good photo for what it's trying to do, but I don't see it as being in scope. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Gibraltar Barbary Macaques BW 2015-10-26 14-07-28.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 18:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gibraltar Barbary Macaques (Macaca sylvanus)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stunning image and I feel it has FP potential. I have two problems: 1. It looks a bit soft, I would sharpen it more, there is detail to be revealed in the fur. 2. the powerlines cable car cables are distracting, sadly. I saw that they are easy to remove, and I did it for fun. Feel free to nominate this as an alternative if you like it, or if you allow I can nominate it myself:
    Gibraltar BW 2015-10-26 14-07-28 removed power lines.jpgLucasT 19:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - To me, this is an FP as is. The power lines don't disturb me at all; they're part of the deliberately somewhat unsharp but sufficiently clear urban background. The slight softness of the monkeys is just that - slight softness. I wouldn't object to judicious sharpening, but I think they're quite clear enough, as this is not a species-identification photo but a touching urban scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The cables are probably a cable car, not power lines, but it is better without them. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, right, the slanted support structure barely visible is a telltale sign, lighter power lines don't require that. – LucasT 22:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The cables don't bother me since they follow the composition of the monkeys but there is room for a bit more light in the photo. The name of the file should also be fixed since it doesn't mention the main motif, the macaques. --cart-Talk 22:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support it, hoping that it might turn out a bit brighter. ;) It is such great image otherwise. --cart-Talk 17:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love it! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 08:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The face of the left hand animal is blurred and I don't like the cables, nor the lighting. Charles (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We can discuss the technical and compositional issues all we want, but the fact for me is that I can't get past that pose. I think we already know what the 2017 PotY will be, based on how the public votes. Daniel Case (talk

) 16:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:River Narmada from Maheshwar Fort.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 18:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Narmada from Maheshwar fort.

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark Ezarateesteban 18:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral let´s wait Ezarateesteban 19:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the chosen composition and lighting work perfectly here. There are "precedents" btw., cf. this great image, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is great, and to me the whole point is that we're viewing a river and the opposite bank from a dark place, through its beautiful decorations. This is one case in which reducing the darkness would also reduce the magic (or if you prefer, the effect). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The windows make a beautiful frame to let you look out - and I think to lighten this darkness would spoil this frame. --PtrQs (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support to me the Darkness is nice, better than HDR. --Ralf Roleček 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A very poetic triptych, HDR would totally ruin it. --cart-Talk 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would have included the shadows more. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The concept of framing is a nice idea, but the scene through the frame is too mundane, and not interesting. Foreground shadows should not look this dark, and should have a little detail -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Without the dark foreground the lights falling on the ground won't look that beautiful IMHO. The contrast here is helping create a mood. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Sumanta. Daniel Case (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I wouldn't necessarily object to a little more shadow detail, but full tone mapped HDR? No way. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Ostankino Tower.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ostankino Tower
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Ostankino TV Tower in Moscow. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Very good, but I see 2 dust spots near the upper left corner and 1 on the left side lower down in the sky that need to be fixed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: I removed all dust spots. -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Apart from those dust spots I see a slight bending / CCW-tilt. Repairing this would significantly raise your chances. Having seen your picture in QI, I expected to find it here in the FP candidates ... --PtrQs (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but per PtrQs. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The reflection of the tower extends gracefully into the fallen leaves below. -- King of ♠ 20:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - There might still be some very light dust spots, but if so, they're so light I'm not sure I see them. This is good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I wish that wedge of sidewalk or whatever wasn't there at the lower left, and the sky still looks a little spotty, but nicely done otherwise. Daniel Case (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 08:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--g. balaxaZe 17:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Pena Palace Sintra.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 11:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pena National Palace
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Pena National Palace. Sintra, Portugal. Created, uploaded and nominated by Sergey Pesterev -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sergey Pesterev (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great shot - unfortunately it's not up to the technical standards expected here, sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Martin. Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, but the things that actually bother me somewhat about this photo are, in order, the unsharp evergreens that take up most of the foreground and the hazy grayish background. Yes, the palace could be clearer, too, but if it were 100% sharp, I still would be unlikely to support a feature if the foreground and background were identical to what's there now. I'd encourage you to take more photos in better light without unsharp foreground trees (or at least fewer of them) if you make another trip to Sintra. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Entrance on Sonnenstrasse, Munich, February 2017.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 07:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Entrance to building on Sonnenstraße 15, Munich.
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Entrance to building on Sonnenstraße 15, Munich; all by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Really excellent application of abstract techniques in modern architecture, and a fine picture. This stands out to me as particularly good, even among FP candidates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Als Münchnerin - ja! --Schnobby (talk) 08:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLucasT 09:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High quality (but can you scrape the chewing gum off?) Charles (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and per Charles if possible. --cart-Talk 10:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info OK, I've swept the floor a bit - but I still wouldn't eat off it ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice unsymmetric symmetry! Unfortunately the NR is a bit visible. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though the NR is so strong that it almost looks like it came from a compact camera; sufficient quality nonetheless. -- King of ♠ 20:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per others although we maybe have a copyright issue here (no FoP for building interiors in Germany). --Code (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Many, if not most interiors on Commons may turn out to be problematic one way or the other. I don't know if that's a "mitigating factor" in my "case" but technically I didn't even leave public ground to take this picture... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, you know whom to call just in case ... --Code (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Shimla night.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:59:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night view of Shimla, India
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Perched on a hillside Shimla is the current capital and largest city of the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh. Previously it was capital of the Indian state of Punjab and, before independence, the summer capital of British India. Shimla is a major tourist destination owing to the large number of colonial buildings, temples, churches in the city, the UNESCO World Heritage Kalka-Shimla Railway, and the mild subtropical highland climate. All by me. -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great photo! So this is where the shot the backdrop for Blade Runner. --cart-Talk 18:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, that's this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 21:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support After some days of waiting for the next wow - this is it! --PtrQs (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Impressive night photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ezarateesteban 00:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even though all the details are visible, the overall impression is too dark. -- King of ♠ 02:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's actually a conscious choice as I don't believe HDR should be about flattening out the tones, rather about pulling the highlights and pushing the shadows while trying to keep the original tonal balance of the picture. But that's just me. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that overly aggressive HDR would not have helped here; I just think that the source material you worked with was too dark, and regardless of whether you tried to "fix" it in post or not, the lighting is still not featurable in my opinion. -- King of ♠ 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see what you mean, KoH, but I have long contended that magic hour pictures are not the only way to shoot night pictures and, depending on the scene, might not even be the best. I guess we agree to disagree on this point. :) -- KennyOMG (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture for such a dark and humid night. How long was the exposure? WClarke 03:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 1s + 4s + 15s, iso 200, f/8. Overall it's pretty close to the 4 sec exposures. KennyOMG (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely colors and texture. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Totally loved it. Great execution. --SumantaJoarder (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi (Florence) - Dome of Cappella Maggiore.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 17:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Santa Maria Maddalena de' Pazzi (Florence) - Dome of Cappella Maggiore

File:Lanchonete frente da praça da Sé, São Paulo, Brasil.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 12:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lanchonete frente da praça da Sé, São Paulo, Brasil
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- The Photographer 12:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request although the pillar in the left is vertical, I feel a disturbing CCW tilt in this pic. Can this be fixed? --PtrQs (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too busy, lacks clear main subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea, but framing the photo with the menu and the green fruits is not doing the photo any favors, shielding the viewer from the shop. It would have been better if you had taken one step further in and shot just the area with the chairs around the counter. --cart-Talk 18:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cart. lNeverCry 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support to me the framing works well.--Ralf Roleček 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposes. To me, a classic example of a picture that saw a lot to do and tried to do it all. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comments and votes. I see that the problem is the quantity of distracting elements and the blurred coconuts --The Photographer 14:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Iridescent clouds during snowfall 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 11:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iridescent clouds during snowfall
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Clouds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Rainbow-colored/iridescent clouds during a snowfall over Lysekil, Sweden. The fringes of the clouds are so thin the water droplets in them produce rainbows. The photo is taken during some interesting weather in the afternoon so it is the sun you see and the dots are snowflakes. All by me -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- cart-Talk 11:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My first thought was that maybe that's what happened last night in Sweden but then I saw the timestamp so we will have to do some more research. Regarding the picture I find it very good compositionally so Symbol support vote.svg Support from my side. --Code (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Face-grin.svg Thanks Code. Well what really happened in Sweden Friday night was that my cold got worse. Didn't think the White House would find out!! So sorry for causing this international incident... --cart-Talk 17:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile-big.svg Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Moody and interesting. I like how the blotchy clouds over the disc of the sun sort of imitate the lunar maria. Or maybe that's just me, who knows? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This is certainly a good photo, though I haven't decided yet whether to support a feature for it, but I prefer File:Crepuscular rays and iridescent clouds during snowfall.jpg, which has more snow and the dark trees as a dramatic contrast with the sky. Just sky is not quite as striking to me and gives me less grounding, literally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I like that pic very much too. Unfortunately, I think the cut sun in that will make it a no-go for the folks here at FPC. --cart-Talk 10:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Really? I didn't realize there were objections to that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It was one of the reasons it was decline at first at QIC where I took it to CR. Looking at past discussions people are generally opposed to things cut at the border of an image when it could have been avoided. The weather that day was very chaotic, clouds moving very fast in the strong wind and it was pure luck that the sun was even in that picture since I was mostly focusing on the rays. I thought the sun was totally hidden behind the cloud, but it broke through just as I pressed the button. --cart-Talk 12:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • By the way, I'm sorry you're sick. I hope you can stay out of the cold for a while. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special, just moon with clouds. --Karelj (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • So sorry, but it is the sun. :) --cart-Talk 23:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, it is a sun. Sorry, but in such a case it is even more "common" image. --Karelj (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Then you are very lucky to live in a place where such scenery is common and you can go out and take photos like this of iridescent clouds around the sun any day. How I envy you, it must be beautiful. It is not so common here. --cart-Talk 14:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: This image is far from common. He's just trying to save face and clearly failing to do so. We men often feel the need to defend our egos in this way... Face-tongue.svg lNeverCry 21:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Brown-cheeked-fulvetta-from-kottayam-kerala.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 10:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by deepugn - uploaded by deepugn - nominated by User:deepugn -- Deepugn (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not a FP, sorry, and to me it isn't an QI, either. The lighting is not good, the head is in shadow. Sharpness overall is acceptable but in the head below the bar, sorry. Poco2 10:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Picture taken early morning, actual lighting, got the feather details sharp so thought of nominating, is there a requirement that any particular parts should be sharp for birds for being nominated to be FP, i meant like head as mentioned in previous comment? Deepugn (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco. Sometimes, people have gotten away with the tail being unsharp, but not the head, and you should sign your post. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment thank you, wanted to get the feedback, i hope you agreed with the lighting comment also. Deepugn (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • If you want feedback, you should ask for that at Commons:Photography critiques or submit your photos to COM:QIC first where you will get that. FPC is for the finished photos, even if some things are changed here during discussions. When you present a photo here, it should already be as good as you can possibly get it. And as Ikan said; please sign your posts. --cart-Talk 11:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, i never knew about the critiques thing, think that will be a good place for my need. Deepugn (talk) 11:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 07:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. This had possibilities—the colors are nice, the light is appropriately soft—but the pose complicated things, and unfortunately that includes the DoF, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
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 four opposes, only one support (nominator) and four days without participation 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:Larnaca 01-2017 img37 LCA Airport.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2017 at 03:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Larnaca International Airport, Cyprus: departure area
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by User:A.Savin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like the long depth of field and the decorations (structural elements?) on the ceiling, and the light is pretty good for an airport. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting motive, well balanced and implemented. The contrasts of warm and cold give the image a special touch. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An excellent perspective --Michielverbeek (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 11:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness overall just ok, nice ceiling, the rest nothing wild, too dark overall Poco2 12:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks Ikan Kekek for the nomination. I for myself hesitated to suggest it, as I know airports with much more interesting iteriors. On the other hand, the picture is QI and it is almost impossible to create *perfect* photos of airport interiors, because, unlike Diliff's and Code's churches, they are never empty of people ;) -A.Savin 14:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Our churches are often busy, we just twist the truth by being highly selective about when to click the shutter. ;-) Diliff (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too boring for me. No wow. — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Draceane – LucasT 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Having taken a similar picture that is one of the QI examples now used for "depth of field", I salute this image as exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to achieve. Daniel Case (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Бандери 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2017 at 19:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Transmission towers in the National Park Pelister, Macedonia
  • ✓ Done The tilt has been fixed so that the first tower is now centred.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No, the tilt is not fixed. It is titled about 2.15° CCW. The clouds at the horizon should be horizontal. And as the power line poles are most probably vertical, there is also perspective distortion. I made a tentative correction, but it should preferably be down from RAW: File:Бандери 2015 (edit).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral pending correction pointed out by Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 05:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Facade of the Palace Hotel, San Francisco.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 22:42:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Facade of the Palace Hotel, a designated San Francisco landmark
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Since walls like this are used to test lenses for distortion, I can't help but notice it isn't perfectly regular. Do you have a lens profile you can apply in your raw conversion software? Have you considered making a b&w version -- the lighting isn't a feature here, nor the sky interesting, and you are left with a study of patterns and form, which works well in b&w. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have the lens distortion profile. I have either forgotten to apply it or there is some residual perspective distortion on the left side. Anyhow, the distortion is extremely small, much less than Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpg which has several supports even though it has a large amount of barrel distortion, especially visible in the bottom corners. Compared to that nomination, this photo also has similar lighting and a vastly more architecturally significant, interesting building. dllu (t,c) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm just being picky. Not an oppose reason. I haven't really decided if there's enough wow here for FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've just replaced the image with the version with lens correction profiles. It should be well corrected now. dllu (t,c) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm OK with this. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Boring. Charles (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Facade of the Palace Hotel, a designated San Francisco landmark
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Monochrome version. dllu (t,c) 20:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Crosswalk of Market at Third, San Francisco.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 22:38:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A pedestrian crossing in San Francisco, viewed from above.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by dllu - uploaded by dllu - nominated by dllu -- dllu (t,c) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- dllu (t,c) 22:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Absolutely YES! KennyOMG (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 22:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't get what's featurable about this. It's a crosswalk with some lines in the street. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I nominated this picture because, in my opinion, the strong diagonal lines gives a striking geometric quality to the iamge. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not exactly Shibuya crossing. The grey overcast weather and the lack of traffic or pedestrians mean this photo doesn't have the necessary spark or life. -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I intentionally selected this image out of dozens to have less traffic. It is too visually cluttered to have this intersection full of random cars. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The shapes and lines make this image very appealing, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shapes and lines. The light gives the photo a gritty NYPD Blue feeling. Not all FPs need to be some manicured Technicolor version of Legoland. --cart-Talk 10:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Not my point at all. Gritty can be good, but it's very hard for the mundane to wow me. This doesn't look like New York to me, though: We haven't had any trolleys for decades (since the 1950s, I think - my parents remembered them but they didn't exist in my lifetime). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think hisher point was more about the aesthetic of NYPD Blue rather than literally being in New York itself. dllu (t,c) 11:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That would be her point. But NYPD Blue was about New York, not San Francisco. As a New Yorker who's also spent a good deal of time in San Francisco, I'm probably too close to both objects to really be able to understand the broad scope of what she means. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Who's 'she', the cat's mother? Face-wink.svg Well, dllu you are absolutely right. I was talking about the feel of a city you get when you watch that TV-show. Ikan, you are taking things far too literary sometimes. I know that I should refrain from speaking metaphorically when describing the mood in photos, but sometimes it is what best describes the feeling I get for a pic. Have you ever been to a wine tasting Ikan? At such events they can speak of the the wine's "nutty flavor with earthy tones and a hint of licorice" to describe the taste of the wine even though there are no nuts, soil or licorice in the actual wine. Using films, songs and TV-series to describe moods in photos work along the same line. Also, please keep in mind that I'm Swedish, and even though I've been to both New York and San Francisco and know they are two very different cities, to me this photo (and NYPD Blue) simply looks "American". I'm sure you could make the same sort of generalization wrt Stockholm and Gothenburg, and simply see them as "Swedish" even if trams are more common in Gothenburg. --cart-Talk 13:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't been to Sweden yet. But you basically said the same thing as I: I'm too close to the objects to see the panoramic view you see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Basotxerri (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed a very different take, one that made me stop and take notice when I was scrolling through new nominations. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You have to give a reason for opposing. Is being different the reason for the oppose? dllu (t,c) 20:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry ... I had meant to type support. Daniel Case (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just a messy composition. Charles (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful photograph. WClarke 20:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't why....but i like the composition,isn't messy for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Super interesting perspective and composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 10.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 16:33:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Footbrigde in Vic-la-Gardiole
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All be me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry - generically pretty countryside, but this composition doesn't make much of an impression on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I kind of like it, but I think the impact of the pathway would be better if the photo was cropped just where it ceases to be seen (+ a clean cut between the trees). That way it looks like it went on forever. I'll make a note. --cart-Talk 21:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion W.carter, but I don't know... it's true that the image is more centered on the subject, and this is not a bad idea but this change not a lot the image, so I prefer to keep the space and this aspect ratio Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh well, you can't get everything in life. :) It's a good pic anyway. --cart-Talk 18:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition, light, landscape - everything is beautiful here. The DoF could be somewhat better but I know that's getting difficult at 70mm. Nice lens, btw. --Code (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 07:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, although cart's suggested crop couldn't hurt. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 16:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely composition with the bridge and the river in parallel,more the sunset light. Adorable. --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Japan tea ceremony 1165.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 13:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Japanese tea ceremony
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by W.carter -- cart-Talk 13:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There are some very minor flaws in this, but taken as a whole, the photo is serene and simply beautiful! -- cart-Talk 13:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cart. Also a powerful reminder of my own inability to sit in seiza for more than 2 minutes ;) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Dull light. Maybe the specialness of this photo is lost on me, but what I see is a very dark bokehish background to a drably lit scene. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 07:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Serene, yes, and I love the color, but those three red things in the back make it a little too busy for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 14:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Ikan. You were right. I changed some things a bit which didn´t find perfect.--Ermell (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ermell: Thanks for the fixing. The 'ping' system doesn't work the same way here as it does on Twitter (the way you wrote just "@Ikan") so I will ping him here (@Ikan Kekek:) in the way that will get him the message. Look at the code in the editing window and you will see how it is done. --cart-Talk 15:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Much better. Moderate Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the best quality, but good composition --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:12 Abu'l Hasan Jahangir Welcoming Shah 'Abbas, ca. 1618, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington DC.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 08:29:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abu'l Hasan. Jahangir Welcoming Shah 'Abbas, ca. 1618, Freer Gallery of Art, Washington DC
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Abu'l Hasan - uploaded by Eugene a - nominated by Sahand Ace -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sahand Ace 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, but to my understanding, this photo should be deleted from Commons. See the "rights statement" here: "Copyright with museum". And if you click "terms of use", you'll see that only non-commercial use is allowed without special permission: "To request images and rights for commercial use, please contact reprorights@si.edu. To request images and rights for the press, please contact pressasia@si.edu. For full legal details, please see the Smithsonian’s terms of use for digital assets." Since Commons uses a Creative Commons Copyleft that enables free commercial or non-commercial use with credit, these terms are not compatible with this project. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
    This is covered by {{PD-ART}}. The WMF's position is "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". These sites try to be greedy with their licensing, but Commons offers them the middle-finger salute. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice to see something different. lNeverCry 09:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - INeverCry, thanks for talking me through that. I guess more knowledgeable legal minds than I have examined U.S. laws and casework and determined that a lawsuit by the Smithsonian wouldn't be successful. That being the case: Judging the photo on its merits, it is unsurprisingly an excellent photo, and this is a beautiful Mughal painting in very good condition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ikan Kekek that is in many museums, wannabe "copyright". If this is from 1620 no question about legal right. Wondering how can museums etc are allowed to put such "copyright notice". Its not legal, but i saw many. --Mile (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The copyright is on the photograph, not the artwork itself. Art photography is a real skill, as we all know. The question of whether the copyright has the force of law is the one I don't know the answer to, but haven't some art photographers sued on the basis that their work was being used without any kind of royalties or even credit being given? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: The biggest threatened lawsuit Commons has encountered was from the NPG London (see User:Dcoetzee/NPG legal threat/Coverage). WMF backed up Derrick and said they didn't consider Sweat of the brow an acceptable policy and were confident a suit by the NPG would be unsuccessful in the US. This came after a mass transfer of NPG images by Derrick, who is based in the bay area. A British citizen or company might not have fared so well against the NPG. lNeverCry 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:128 Balconies of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2017 at 07:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apartments of 1390 Market Street, San Francisco
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by User:Dllu - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very good Alvesgaspar/The Photographer-style work by Dllu. A tad soft at full size, but full size is about as big as you could get without severely violating residents' privacy, and I really enjoy looking around the form of the photograph and its many differences within a theoretically uniformly boxy structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLucasT 08:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 09:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It look like a voyeur picture performed by myself --The Photographer 10:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see this as an unwarranted Peeping Tom intrusion into people's private property and surely must be against Wikipedia guidelines on privacy, especially since the address is given. We should not be promoting voyeur pictures. Charles (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Interesting. Have you made such comments before when similar photos were up for discussion at FPC? If not, what's different this time? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I have commented on privacy issues several times before (and see current FPC). Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
IMHO It's inevitable, with the time, cameras censors are larger and photographs became very detailed. At some point it will be possible to observe the whole interior of any building. --The Photographer 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course intrusions become easier, and with increased detail comes new responsibilities. Why should we encourage this type of intrusion. If this was your flat would you want a community like Commons promoting an image of who is in your flat, what they are doing and what goodies you might have waiting to be stolen? Not me. Charles (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Ambivalent While this is a good photo, I too get an uneasy feeling about this one. I have no problem with office buildings and I have supported a photo like this before (but commented that I felt like a perv peeping in on people's private life) where you could see people's living rooms and not many people, but this strikes me as having mostly the bedrooms facing this view and it is much, much more detailed and that feels like a step too far. If I'm at home relaxing in my bed, I would not want a photo of that as an FP. --cart-Talk 11:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's a valid point, and I'll think about it, but all but one person seems questionably recognizable unless you already know them, and the most recognizable person is on his porch at the lowest floor depicted. I don't like the "it's inevitable" argument, though. Is this an unwarranted and objectionable invasion of privacy? Let's have a discussion about that. I just might withdraw this nomination if there's enough objection or the arguments really convince me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination - To everyone who supported this photo, I'm sorry. I think the critics are right. If anyone wants to take over this nomination, feel free, but in that case, I think I must abstain, as I've concluded that my appreciation for this photograph as a work of art is a bit callous toward people with expectations of at least a greater degree of privacy within their own homes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for nominate this picture, however, I understand this point for pictures where "A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy"[1] , however, it's a very subjetive factor in this particular case --The Photographer 13:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for nominating this picture! I was a bit hesitant to upload it (even though it was taken two months ago) because of privacy concerns also, but my photography friends assured me it was okay. This was taken with a 50mm lens on full frame, and I think it should be fine. There is little reasonable expectation of privacy at a large window facing a busy city, especially when viewed by a lens whose field of view is similar to that of the human eye. But to focus on an individual one of these with a 300mm lens, or to crop the picture, however, may be a breach of privacy (though that sort of project has been attempted before, with great controversy: [2]). In any case, like Ikan, I was also drawn by the geometry of the somewhat brutalist building contrasting against the randomness of the windows, and indeed, I was inspired by Featured works by The Photographer. dllu (t,c) 17:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
If it’s in public view and you’re on public property, then you’re allowed to take a picture of it and upload it in commons because it's legal in your country. There are permutations. If you’re standing on a public sidewalk and you’re taking a picture with a 50-millimeter lens, and it’s a wide shot of the city street, that’s fine. If you now put on an 800-millimeter lens and take a picture through somebody’s window, you’ve now invaded their privacy and that could be a civil tort, however, it's only a subjective moral issue and not a legal rule. --The Photographer 17:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks everyone for the mature discussion. Charles (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • dllu, what do you mean about the field of view being similar to that of the human eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A 50mm lens is considered a normal lens. It is a common adage to say that a normal lens has a similar field of view as the human eye (though in actuality the human eye's field of view is very wide but blurry outside of the fovea region). dllu (t,c) 04:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Where could you get this clear a view of bedrooms with a naked eye? Is the view this clear from across the street? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This was taken from 100 Van Ness Ave, a high rise residential building right across the street. dllu (t,c) 11:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • And is the view just as clear from there with the naked eye? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, the buildings are fairly close. Here's a screenshot from Google Maps: [3]. Here's the approx field of view superimposed on Google maps: [4]. The two red lines are 40 degrees apart. The horizontal field of view of a 50mm lens is around 39 degrees, as per an online calculator [5]. There was a small amount of cropping in this photo. dllu (t,c) 12:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
But I don't know the rules or legislation of the area of the picture--Lmbuga (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Minor cyan CAs--Lmbuga (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment (poor English) Sorry, this photo is IMO one of the best photos I have seen lately. If there is something personal or personal in the photo, it is not the purpose of presenting it. The photo does not care (it does not focus) for presenting any details. The important thing is the global vision.

It can not be considered intrusive when names and surnames are not used. Who is there recognizable?

You do not see it, but we're talking about freedom of expression. We speak of the freedom of expression of journalists; Of the right to information.--Lmbuga (talk) 13:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that the freedom of speech and to express yourself can be used in much better ways than to point a lens into unsuspecting people's bedrooms. --cart-Talk 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment very nice picture. Tus hijos de cinco años pueden saber lo que hacen sus amigos y ganarles millones de dólares en la bolsa" Que cabrones soir todos!!!

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo[edit]

I want to continue with the nomination of this photo. Now I'm the nominator. Thanks.--Lmbuga (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I will duly Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain now. Lmbuga: Not nominating or supporting this picture for a feature in no way denies dllu freedom of expression. You'd have a stronger case if the photo were nominated for deletion and deleted, but even then, it would be a matter of policy rather than a way to prevent him from taking the photo and posting it elsewhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Haßberge Scheune 5153908.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Barn located between Weisbrunn and Oberaurach
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some weeks ago on QI. I like this colourful image and I hope that six or seven more persons like it, too... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really nice! --cart-Talk 21:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The town where I come 90 % of the houses look like this, I'm only explaining why it's not wow for me. --The Photographer 10:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Most of the building is hidden and if that was intentional, the idea doesn't work for me. Charles (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It was the "yin and yang" pattern of the green and yellow around the building that struck me as significant. This is the sort of photo where you can choose to see the center or the surroundings. --cart-Talk 12:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good image! Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per cart. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - With blocks of almost solid color, I don't find that this picture is really that rewarding to move my eye around (you could think of it this way: it lacks the linear arabesque that I like to see in 2D static visual art, which gives it a feeling of dynamism). That said, if the yellow flowers were only beyond the house, I think the pure visual impact of that division would cause the photo to merit a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like it. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Comercio en la plaza del 9 de abril de 1947, Tánger, Marruecos, 2015-12-11, DD 77.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:16:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spices and food store in the April 9th 1947 Square, better known as Grand Socco, Tangier, Morocco.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Grocery and grocery shop in the April 9th 1947 Square, better known as Grand Socco, Tangier, Morocco. All by me, Poco2 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 19:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wasn't wowed until I opened this at full size and smelled the spices and the musty old wood in the shop. :) --cart-Talk 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice documentary work --The Photographer 10:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting and composition - just look at the red thing in the foreground. Charles (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per cart and The Photographer. Daniel Case (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Charles, poor light conditions. No FP for me. --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Barely Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm really torn because this is a good portrait of a shopkeeper at his store, and the light conditions are what they are and give the photo a realism I can accept. But what really distracts me is precisely the red plastic thing in front. It spoils the symmetry of the spice bins. In the end, as much as I like this photo, when I think about whether it's really one of the best photos on the site, I reluctantly demur. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So, when a photographer barges into a store in Tangier, he should bring his own lighting equipment and ask the owner to rearrange the items in the shop so that the photo will be more aesthetically pleasing for a bunch of picky westerners, rather than documentary? --cart-Talk 13:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Of course not, but if you were to barge into a store and take a snap-shot, don't expect to become an FP. 11:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - High-quality work with plenty of illustrative value. One little plastic device at the edge of the frame can't ruin the whole thing. Real life, alas, isn't always tidy or "symmetrical." –Juliancolton | Talk 15:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Montes de Vitoria - Quercus ilex 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 19:12:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Holm oak (Quercus Ilex Ilex) near Pagogan summit. Montes de Vitoria mountain range, Spain
  • ✓ Done I should have seen this, sorry. Thank you! --Basotxerri (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PtrQs (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful lighting and composition. -- King of ♠ 04:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice one. --Code (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image, though I would crop 15% off the bottom and 5% off the top. Charles (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I prefer it, Thanks. Charles (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Charles, I've compared both version again and think you're right, your crop suggestion looks more interesting. Thanks for the advice. Anyway, like this nomination has almost ended, I think it doesn't make sense to restart it again. --Basotxerri (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tree against landscape ... doesn't always work as well as we'd like to think when taking the picture, but this time it does. Daniel Case (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 21:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:2017 Smog nad Nową Rudą.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 15:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Smog over Nowa Ruda
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Good documentation of an unnatural phenomenon, but not so beautiful, in my opinion. I think that "Nowa Ruda, view with smog" might be a good scope for a VI nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: I changed category. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually, it is a natural phenomenon—see temperature inversion. I've seen it often in winter in similar situations, usually a bluish haze over some ski village where a lot of fireplaces are being used. This looks to me almost like coal was being burned in a lot of the village? Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Inversions are a natural phenomenon, but smog is not. Now, if this were a picture of vog (volcanic fog) over the Big Island of Hawaii, that would be a different story. Of course that's a side point. You and the others are wowed by the picture, and that's what counts most. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: It's fair to say that the smog is an unnatural phenomenon resulting from the naturally occurring inversion layer. Whatever. You're right that the only thing the matters is that we like or don't like the image. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Weld Jallaba Show 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 11:00:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Weld Jallaba Show by the artist and dancer Rochdi Belgasmi I am nominating it for FP due to the fact that it shows that dancers paint with their bodies and because it is like a cyclone of dance.
  • Thanks, I'll support this as soon as eyes and crop are fixed. --cart-Talk 15:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with cart. This would be a good example of "rear-curtain sync" in the Flash synchronization article on WP. -- Colin (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Waiting on the eyes to be fixed. Daniel Case (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you IssamBarhoumi for fixing the eyes but there is still too much dark space above the dancer's head for my taste. It needs to be cropped. --cart-Talk 10:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's fine now. These things should have been taken care of at QIC, but things do get missed there from time to time. --cart-Talk 17:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very interesting: You captured motion in a still photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea, but the face is not sharp enough - and the whites of the eyes are still red. Charles (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Industrilandskapet Norrköping February 2017.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 09:27:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Norrköping
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The river Motala ström and the historic industrial district (known as Industrilandskapet) in Norrköping, Sweden. Industrilandskapet is a well-preserved industrial area, the industrial development started in the 17th century and carried on through to the middle of the 20th century, and a number of woollen spinning mills and cotton factories were established.
  • Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can't help thinking that this would have been better in color, the buildings are not interesting enough for a BW conversion. --cart-Talk 21:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Mild support I too wonder what a color version would look like, but in grayscale I'm just blown away by the perspective. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very impressive view. I think the b/w conversion works well in this case although I'm also curious how the coloured version looks like. --Code (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd be interested to see a color version, but in my case, I think it's an idle curiosity, as I'm happy to accept the photo as is. I think using black & white helps accentuate the industrial character of the buildings and the industrial use of the watercourse. And what makes the photo special to me is the long depth of field looking down the watercourse and the plunging reflections of every structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 17:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:The triumph of french painting The apotheosis of Poussin,Le Sueur and Le Brune - Louvre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2017 at 08:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Excellent painting art work, however, the quality of this shot doesn't honor to the painting. Satured colors that result in too yellow temperature, lack of details (Have you tried build it from the RAW? and not use just the camera internal building). Also extreme lens distortion in corners, a common problem already commented an others nominations. Btw, Remember that it's only MHO --The Photographer 11:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I sincerely don't understand what you mean for "MHO". --LivioAndronico (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On colors and the details even don't answer because it is personal matter, on "distortions" I'll note that it is a roof is curved there some problems to straighten it, like this[6]. Thank you --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There are someone's fingers near the right lower corner --PtrQs (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per PtrQs --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  • ✓ DonePtrQs,Martin Falbisoner I honestly do not ever put an opposition to something that is easily solved, however, each one has its own way. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing that; I'm also fine with the tighter crop. Of course I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my intervention, but as those ghostly fingers were still fumbling at this QI, I couldn't ignore them Face-smile.svg Symbol support vote.svg Support --PtrQs (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment PtrQs i don't said that you must ignore,simply ask to resolve and not oppose. Thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects


Кандидати за брисање[edit]

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago Lungo 11.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 16:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view from the path between the Malga Mare Power Station and Lago Lungo in Stelvio National Park, Italy

File:Helgolandpanorama vom Pinneberg.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view over Heligoland from it´s highest point, the Pinneberg (61.3 m)

File:Draco volans 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 15:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Common Flying Dragon, Draco volans (Museum specimen)
  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This is a dramatic picture even though it's a museum specimen, so I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support, but I'm sure you'll have complaints about the lack of sharpness of the head, so you might try your hand at sharpening it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done You are right, sharpness of the head is corrected --Llez (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Watford Jon (Argy Bargy) IMGP4754 smial wp.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Watford John of London punk band "Argy Bargy"
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Smial (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I like the "Hey, you!" gesture and expression. What are we looking at that appears to be a narrow diagonal shaft of light? Is that exactly what it is? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jake Kiley (Strung Out) (Ruhrpott Rodeo 2013) IMGP4953 nmz.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 14:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jake Kiley of "Strung Out" at Ruhrpott Rodeo festival 2013
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Smial - uploaded by Smial - nominated by -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Smial (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Regardless of the motion blur, I'm inclined to support because of the expression, but similar question as for the other one: Is that a reflection of him and the guitar in the upper left corner of the frame? If so, fine, and I would support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Dome Cappella Chigi, Santa Maria del Popolo (Rome).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:55:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017 -01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 09:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex completed in 2004. It was planned by Murphy/Jahn and - involuntarily - helped foster the strongly developed anti-highrise-stance in Munich's populace. I've taken a little series of pictures showing the colorful LED illumination of its exterior, of which I like -01 best, although that was a tough choice. Btw., I used to work in one of the towers about 10 years ago. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cool. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I thought to nominate it. --Yann (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really great! --cart-Talk 10:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Highlight Towers Munich, February 2017[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:58:56 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Highlight Towers in Munich is a twin tower office skyscraper complex completed in 2004. It was planned by Murphy/Jahn and - involuntarily - helped foster the strongly developed anti-highrise-stance in Munich's populace. As suggested by Ikan, I'd like to nominate a set of three pictures showing the colorful LED illumination of its exterior. Btw., I used to work in one of the towers 10 years ago. All by me, --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, solely on the basis that the three are too similar in my opinion to all be FP, while the base image might be FP worthy. It took me a second to see the illumination differences. As the color is only a narrow strip in the overal image, it is technically colorful, but not in the most impactful way. The sky and the rest of the building is dominating here. An example of a truly colorful building would be Munich's Allianz Arena, were a set nomination showing off the colors would make much more sense, just by the total area of color occupying the image. – LucasT 07:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I guess you're right, Lucas. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Hinckley Daysailor 42 by D Ramey Logan.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hinckley Daysailor 42
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and such by -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Don (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works for me. The wave breaker adds an unusual element to this photo. But please add a geotag and much better description plus categories. Since you have entered this in the "Sports" FP category instead of "Objects/Vehicles/Sailboats", I guess the pic is from some competition and that plus location should also be explained. --cart-Talk 09:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1/500 not fast enough to freeze motion. Charles (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bergwandeltocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel (1,839 m) in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italy) 23.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2017 at 06:34:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mountain Walking Tour from Pejo to Lago Covel (1,839 m) in the Stelvio National Park (Italy). Views of the surrounding landscape. All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice color depth and well composed --Don (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice colors and stunning view. It reminds me of those pictures they had on chocolate boxes when I was a kid. --cart-Talk 09:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice pic and beautiful have a lady here --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is a pretty spectacular picture, especially the lighted rocky mountainsides, and it's at its best at full size. I see the one tree in the near foreground all the way over to the right as a slight imperfection, but I doubt that cropping it out would make the overall composition better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like a Romantic painting --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Salar de Tara, Chile, 2016-02-07, DD 64-67 PAN.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2017 at 22:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the Tara Cathedrals (left) and the the Tara salt flat in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panoramic view of the Tara Cathedrals (left) and the the Tara salt flat in the Atacama Desert, northern Chile. All by me, Poco2 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Another beautiful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Spectacular, though there's a slight ca in the clouds (top/left edges green and right magenta). On another note I think just the small portion of the road and the rocks above, with the clouds behind would be enough alone to make this an fp; but this has so much more. KennyOMG (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Any color fringing is very very minor and requires you to be actively searching for it. Beautiful pano. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works very well! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 09:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:TS-11 SPARK Aerobatic team White-Red Sparks Danish Air Show 2014-06-22.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2017 at 22:12:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White-Red Sparks
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Air_transport
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Personally, I like the composition, light, and colors on this one taken a beautiful summer morning as the bi-annual Danish Air Show 2014 was about to begin. The pose of the pilot with one shoe tip towards the ground showing a self-confident pilot, probably proud to be on his countrys show team (this is the White-Red Sparks from the Polish Air Force), the other pilots and crew discussing the events to come. There is a tranquility before action mood to the scenary, in sharp contrast to the noise level, which was very high as all the aircraft had their jet engines on. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition, but there's too much posterization on the planes. Daniel Case (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really cool photo. Can't see any posterization though. What I can see are shadows and reflections on some planes from the adjacent planes. There are also discolorations from fuel, oils, overheating, repairs with mismatched paintjob and everything that comes with maintaining planes like these. Sure, the colors can look blotchy when you see the planes on the ground, but who cares, it doesn't matter when they are up in the sky doing their thing. :) I just wonder if it is possible to get rid of that little round thing on the tarmac far right in the photo? --cart-Talk 00:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose - It strikes me that between the shallow DoF and the heat distortion from the hot tarmac, almost nothing is sharp or in focus. I agree with the nominator that the standing pilot's pose is a compelling element, but he's so blurry that he doesn't really serve as any sort of main subject, which is what I would have liked to see. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Juliancolton, unfortunately --El Grafo (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:1 Singaporeskyline9g.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 23:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Marina Bay, Singapore 2012.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Special place, light well managed. -- Yann (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Impressive indeed but there's some weirdness going on in the sky, seems like color banding or maybe stitch lines? It's very much visible and I doubt could be fixed without starting over from the raw files. It's also leaning to the left ever so slightly but visibly. KennyOMG (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yeah, I was going to comment about the strange shapes in the sky and water from stitching problems. Those do have to be fixed before this photo could be featured. Chensiyuan, do you have the time to fix those problems in the next week or so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment on first sight it's great - oh no, sorry: It's a terrific view, - but even if you can tame your stitching software, only some of the buildings are sharp, others not at all. --PtrQs (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with others. It needs restitched. Perhaps also Smartblend to hide any stitching issues better. Also, please don't use AdobeRGB for the web; use sRGB. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg digression - I thought only people from the Pittsburgh area used the "needs +-ed" construction ("the car needs washed" [or "warshed"]; "that bug needs killed"). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
No Ikan, we do in Scotland too. Charles (talk)
@Charlesjsharp: A lot of Pittsburgh/Western Pennsylvania's original European settlers were Scots-Irish; that probably explains that. In rural areas you still hear older people talking about how they might need to "red up" the house before company comes, which is also Scots-Irish. However, I don't know if "yins" as the second-person plural is something you'd hear in Scotland (you will in Pittsburgh). Daniel Case (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Provisional support on fixing whatever errors there are. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 10:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Wat srichum 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting view, - but I think that color fringes had to be fixed --PtrQs (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to insufficient image quality --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per fixable CA issues noted above. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Tomer T: I really like this photo with its unusual perspective and seeing that Khunkay isn't very active at the moment, I have fixed a version with most of the CA removed and a very, very slight noise reduction. Do you want me to upload it on this file? You can always rollback the edit if you don't like it. --cart-Talk 20:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Of course. Tomer T (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I like that picture, so let's have a look. --PtrQs (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, let's see if this is enough or if I botched the job. Remember to purge your cache. --cart-Talk 20:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In the fileliste I see 4 pictures, wherein #2 and #3 have a more copper-like gold and a violet sky. By the color of the sky I would guess, that the brownish gold is more realistic. Is it possible to combine the original gold-color with the good No-CA work? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Versions 3 & 4 are exactly (or should be) like ver 2, but with just two minor corrections on the CA of the statue. It is a curse that you always find something you've missed as soon as you upload a file. :-/ The first part of the CA removal was made in Lightroom with additional manual removal in Photoshop. It is possible that LR did something with the hue when it removed the CA. I'll see if I can put back the right hue. Files also "change" when you upload them since the different programs and browsers fiddle with the color. --cart-Talk 21:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed I've nudged the spectrum two steps back towards the original brow-gold as requested. I think this is as far as I want to mess with this. Someone else can take over or revert if necessary. --cart-Talk 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question BTW: is it possible to describe what we see in real english? --PtrQs (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --cart-Talk 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:PhuSangWTF 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 21:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Khunkay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bokeh looks somewhat weird but doesn't detract from the overall image. KennyOMG (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Upper left part is somewhat dark, maybe this is improvable. The description says "English" but it obviously isn't. Should be fixed as well. Otherwise an excellent picture which would get my support. --Code (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Dark left part attracts the attention to the right part, and that is most important part. Please don't reduce the left darkness too much --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Something different, thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Picture is fine as it is, but the "English" description should be fixed. --cart-Talk 10:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment description fixed. Tomer T (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pugilist (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I've decided I like this enough to support a feature. It's best at laptop screen size, not at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WTF could be changed --The Photographer 14:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Funchal Carros do Monte 2016 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 17:12:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Drive on traditional basketwork sledges operated by "carreiros" for tourists in the city Funchal, Madeira
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karelj (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a nice idea but execution is lacking in my opinion. I feel the context is missing because the vehicle the photographer is sitting on is not in the frame, so we as the viewers are sort of lost where we are here. Secondly, the three men closest are all blurred, but it doesn't look good IMO because the ground is not blurred enough to suggest any significant speed, so it looks (!) like camera shake blur. Composition is also not the best with the two men left and right cut off, although the overal symmetry is nice. The scene has potential, a wider angle lens would have helped a lot here. Also, there are noticeable CAs on the white clothes and the rope. – LucasT 19:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think Lucas said most of it, there are also the leaning verticals and the overexposed areas on the white clothes. The men pulling are also in the zones of a photo where focus tends to be less good than in the middle of the pic. --cart-Talk 20:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 20:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. --Milseburg (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I withdraw my nomination.--Karelj (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ezarateesteban 11:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni) male head.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 09:48:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Head of male Jackson's hornbill (Tockus jacksoni)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This noisy hornbill can only be found in the North East corner of Uganda and the North West corner of Kenya. All created by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Charles (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose over-processed maybe trying remove background noise resulting in a dropshadow effect in the beak border (I added a note) IMHO and maybe I'm wrong, you applied a noise reduction in background dividing in layers the bird and the background for apply a Gaussian blur in the background, however, in the low layer (a copy of the front layer) there is the bird that now is showed like a dropshadow in the current image. My suggestion is apply a simply noise reduction in the background but not dividing in layers. Also too space on image top. BTW It's a beautiful image and remember me another nomination --The Photographer 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would prefer to see nature/wildlife photos not photoshopped to blur the background. It is very hard to do convincingly. The edges are a bit obvious. -- Colin (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Colin, it could be allowed, however, using a better technique. IMHO. Take a look to for example. The problem come when you are changing colors or you are using some layer denoise technique and not a specialized denoise tool like neat image. --The Photographer 14:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This looks more than just denoising. More like trying to increase the background bokeh blur. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Well it was exactly what I was telling you, please, take a look to the image source too. I removed it because it was distracting, however, now I don't know if it's acceptable. What do you think?. Thanks --The Photographer 17:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with the above, has the look of one of those "artistic" Photoshop filters which is never a good thing. Detail on the bird is nice though. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aside from the badly executed blurring/whatever already mentioned, I would have liked to see a bit more of the bird's neck. Now it looks as if it is striving to keep its head above the bottom line of the photo. With such a heavy beak, almost (vertical) centering the eye is not enough, the centre of gravity of the subject is too low. Sharpness otherwise as great as we've come to expect from Sharp Photo. --cart-Talk 15:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Badly executed blurring. edit: No with the new versions uploaded, I come to wonder what caused the drop shadow that partly caused all the oppose votes. – LucasT 19:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @The Photographer, Colin, Juliancolton, Lucasbosch, W.carter:@Milseburg, INeverCry: I never mind constructive criticism, and there is clearly a drop shadow which could be removed by reprocessing. I may be sensitive, but I do resent all these incorrect assumptions about my processing and your suggestions of blurring. As Commons does not allow a direct upload of the .CR2 file from my camera, I have uploaded the RAW file saved as a .jpg with absolutely no processing. Do please have a look. Charles (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Charles, thanks for uploading that unprocessed file for comparison. Please be assured that I never meant to personally criticize your editing techniques. I did believe that some kind of extensive manipulation had been done to produce the hazy borders, but I see now that was not the case. Taking a closer look, it's a similar effect to what I've noticed on my own relatively high-ISO images from older crop-sensor cameras. The end result is the same, though, and I'm very much in agreement with Cart's comments about the composition. Even if it isn't quite what we look for in an FP, it's still a remarkable image. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I assumed from The Photographer's comments on Gaussian blur that you'd applied a very strong blur. Certainly the margin between the bird feathers and the background was rough and demonstrated detail the background did not have at all -- but it seems this was just noise. So while you haven't blurred it to increase the background bokeh blur, you've certainly blurred it far beyond the necessary for noise reduction. To the point where the background got posterised and artificially plastic looking, and the bird looked crudely Photoshopped onto it. I'm afraid this just adds further to my complaint about reviewers who pixel peep -- it not only causes people to downsize unnecessarily, or to leave, but also to clumsily blur images when there was in fact nothing much wrong with the noise levels. The degree of noise in your "direct from raw" would probably diminish if you applied a sharpening mask to the default sharpening used by Lightroom or ACR. Then only a smidgen of luminance NR might help. Really, we are ruining perfectly good pictures in order to satisfy people who look at pixels rather than pictures. Fullscreen on a 220dpi monitor, the noise here is barely visible, certainly not troublesome, and the image wonderfully sharp. I would like us to reach a point where the amount of noise here, on a 20MP image raised no oppose votes at all, much like a small degree of CA or a couple of barely visible dust spots shouldn't be a reason to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with Colin that there is nothing wrong with the background in the "straight from RAW photo". That looks natural and perfectly fine no need for any extra work. There is no strange shadow around the beak either. Still not enough neck on the bird for my taste though. ;) Since I've learned more about post-processing after hanging out here at FPC, I don't go as heavy on the NR as before. Most NR on backgrounds can ruin the authentic feel of a photo. --cart-Talk 23:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your courage to upload the original photo and accept our criticism with maturity. I uploaded a version applied noise reduction, however, I rollbacked myself --The Photographer 23:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the others on the amount of noise in the raw file - very minor and no bar to a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
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 6 opposes already in the first day - not much chance of this nomination succeeding 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.
lNeverCry 21:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@INeverCry: I think you may have applied fpx too hastily and not in accordance with the FPC rules. You may have been influenced by the 'herd instinct' votes and you have not given me the opportunity to upload a new version. Charles (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Charles, actually, I think it would be best if you closed/withdrew this nom and started a new one of the new version of the photo. You know with the "/2" thing you can read about on the COM:FPC right above the nomination box. That way you can start with a clean slate and don't have to ping everybody, etc. --cart-Talk 11:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Good idea. People can then oppose on the basis of the tight crop etc. if they want. Anyone volunteering to process my RAW file (which I can mail)?

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Charles (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Met rijp bedekte katjes van een els (Alnus) 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2017 at 06:20:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Betulaceae.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info With hoarfrost covered catkins of alder (Alnus). All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment another great example of highly reduced, modern Dutch still lifes! :-) I'd suggest to adapt the white balance to the wintery scenery though - here it appears much too warm. An ice-cold blueish hue could further underline the intended mood, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The grayish white appearance of the photo is sufficiently frosty for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think it would be FPC sharpness even if white balance/tone sorted. -- Charlesjsharp 09:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition isn't wowing me. Agree the light looks too warm. -- Colin (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose I don't mind the WB, but composition is somewhat lacking. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. WB. correction Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin and Julian regarding the composition. lNeverCry 20:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternative, another version[edit]

Met rijp bedekte katjes van een els (Alnus) 03.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info With hoarfrost covered catkins of alder (Alnus).--Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan above. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Yes, I like this one, too, but I'm not sure why the people who don't support the other version would support this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • (By the way, English word order would be "Catkins of alder (Alnus) covered with hoarfrost". English may be at base a Germanic language, but our grammar is very different from German, Dutch, and I suppose Frisian.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support also ok! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't find it special enough for FP. The subject is centered in the frame and it provides no wow for me. It's a beatiful sight in nature but the photograph is not impactful IMO. – LucasT 09:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:OSIRIS Mars true color.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 21:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

True color image of Mars generated taken by the Rosetta spacecraft
I have no idea, the ESA caption doesn't mention it. It's about the right size to be Deimos, but Deimos is in a nearly perfect equatorial orbit, and due to this I can't think of a combination of angles that would make appearing where it does in the image plausible. My guess would be a bright star or planet in the background. It could also be a camera artifact I guess. A2soup (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing. Charles (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Any photograph like this of a planet in our solar system is going to have a high degree of uniqueness, though I'm not blown away by this one. The colors are nice, though the resolution and detail isn't anything special, especially when compared to other similar photos of planets, like this one of Pluto from 2015. Sorry. WClarke 23:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's because this image was taken in 2007. However, there are no FP or even QI or VI images of the entire planet with details. I would Symbol support vote.svg Support featuring this until we have a better one, and probably even after that, as a historical image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 02:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree that resolution leaves quite a bit to be desired, but stunning nonetheless. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --cart-Talk 09:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Dull lighting, no wow for me. Also per WClarke. Yes, it's special because of the subject, but as a non-expert this is not interesting to look at. I find this falls into the category of the more boring planet photos and I would gladly support the more exciting ones out there. – LucasT 19:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You could do a good service if you can find some higher-quality NASA photos of the entire planet of Mars and upload them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, I never commented on resolution, but on lighting and overal photographic qualities. I realise that we get what we get here and it certainly is a novelty subject, but I feel this is better suited as VI and comparing it with majority of the space FPs we have I just find it not exciting enough. Looking at the other replies below, there are "better" images of Mars out there. I'm fine with being the only opposer though. – LucasT 09:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Lucas, you've stated before, if my memory isn't playing tricks with me, that you don't have much interest in astronomy. It looks like most of the rest of us do. And novelty is quite an important reason for a feature. It's way too soon to be jaded with sizable full-planet pictures of Mars! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are several big Mars photos on NASA pages (1 2 3) , but how do we know if they are free? --cart-Talk 00:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To my knowledge, under U.S. law, all government pictures that are not classified (or in the case of C.I.A. photos and the like, declassified) are freely usable by the public. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note that all those images are mosaic composites of low-altitude images taken by orbiters, as you can easily see by looking near the edges where the mapping of the images onto a globe breaks down. The level of detail is obviously very high, but the verisimilitude, as you might imagine, is lower. This is, to my knowledge, the highest quality image of the entire planet taken from the perspective depicted.
I would also add that the second image linked above, despite its wide dissemination, is actually highly misleading, as it maps images from a significantly less-than-global portion of the Martian surface onto a globe, distorting the size and location of the features depicted (primarily the Valles Marineris), as can easily be seen when referencing a global map of Mars or either of the other images linked above, which both show Valles Marineris in a true global mosaic. The imagery for that mosaic was obtained by the Viking 1 orbiter (the first US Mars orbiter), which orbited at a 39.5˚ inclination and was therefore unable to image the entire surface - it was the best they could do at the time. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A2soup, thanks for the explanation. Nice to get all the ins and outs of these pictures sorted out. It also confirms that I should stay away from uploading space pics, since I don't know enough about it. :) But they are pretty and interesting! --cart-Talk 10:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Râşnov Citadel (Rosenauer Burg) 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 18:59:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Râşnov Citadel, Romania
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment shame about the people. Charles (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Generally well-done, but as a slightly unsharp (especially the left edge) 7 MP image with no mitigating factors or the feeling of "wow, we have to promote this even if the quality is a bit lower than usual." -- King of ♠ 01:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KoH. lNeverCry 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KoH --PtrQs (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per King. Seems to me that the image might have had some serious overexposure on the building which was brought under control at the cost of looking overprocessed (something about the blue in the sky doesn't strike me the right way). Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it; the composition is good and the path with people walking up and down reminds me of a picture book -- Thennicke (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support no pseudo sharpness visible. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Draceane talkcontrib. 10:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:HibisGate3Dareios1AmunRaMut.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 15:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Relief of Persian king Darius I in Egypt

File:Sish Mahal, Jodhpur Fort.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2017 at 05:49:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sheesha Mahal, Mehrangarh fort
  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/<add the category here>]]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Below the level of sharpness we typically expect of interior FPs. Overall I think the lighting is unbalanced; the bottom is a bit too dark for the composition to work in my mind. -- King of ♠ 07:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, essentially per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per KoH. Daniel Case (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
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 as per above comments, also incomplete nomination. Yann (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2017 (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.
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

File:Philips Series 7000 shaver head.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 22:15:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A new Philips Series 7000 shaver head, photographed in the style of a promotional image. All by me -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 35 frames... great! --Ralf Roleček 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 22:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but I must point out that there are a few minor blurry spots on edges and overlaps, because I spend some time retouching my recent own stacks correcting these things. – LucasT 22:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ...and sufficiently clean too. This is one piece of machinery you don't want a dirty close-up of! ;) The surface lends itself very nicely to such a photo. --cart-Talk 22:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just one little thing that could be corrected: Down center there are two places where you can see some flesh-toned reflections, probably from you. It would look nicer if those were in grey tones instead. --cart-Talk 22:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Cart, Lucas: I've updated a new version with the reflection removed and the blurred areas fixed with sharper frames. -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Frank. I'm a wet shave man myself, though with more modern technology than your link :-). My wife thinks I'm completely bonkers, spending the evening in the kitchen taking dozens of photos of my son's shaver. I showed her the result and she said: "It's a shaver. So?" *sigh* -- Colin (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great texture. -- King of ♠ 00:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot! I guess I´m gonna have to learn focus stacking :) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Enthusiastic support Utterly stunning result! Was it really necessary to shoot 36 frames? What's the (average) DoF of each image? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per everyone else - really impressive! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice shoot and professional and I think that your quality is improving Diliff Colin. Clean and perfect, I added a note to let more space there --The Photographer 12:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Photographer, I'll check but I'm pretty sure I have no more of the image at the bottom, to change the crop. I agree I could have included a bit more when I took the photos. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I understand that you should do it again because the image is already done, however, it's a minor problem --The Photographer 12:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

:*Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question why, Daniel? I'm really interested because you also had the option not to vote at all. I understand that overly technical pics tend to polarize more than other subjects. Something along that line? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Martin, I suspect the reason has nothing to do with this nomination, just me. So would appreciate any comment by Daniel unrelated to this nom, be made on Martin's or Daniel's talk page. -- Colin (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe he's not sure if support or oppose for some wow raison. --The Photographer 12:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No doubt FP. --Pugilist (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

File:PlayaVarese-04920.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beach of stones before Varese beach
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me-- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ezarateesteban 21:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 22:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me, somewhat dull lighting, the clouds are a bit interesting, but the brown water destroys it and I see no clear subject. It looks like a just decent tourist shot to me, sorry. – LucasT 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lucas. lNeverCry 08:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition but the blown highlights on the surf and building are too much ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky does not really impressed me --Michielverbeek (talk) 12:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request What is the standard for sky expected here? Ezarateesteban 14:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Klagemauer Jerusalem RalfR-DSCF7673.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2017 at 21:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Western Wall of the Temple Mount, Jerusalem - all by -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ralf Roleček 21:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nitpicks like the noisy upper edges aside, I'm sadly not wowed by it enough. It's a decent photo though. I just feel like a different camera position and composition would have emphasized the specialty of the wall better. – LucasT 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even if it lacks the drama associated to this place, it is a pretty good description picture. The details on the wall are interesting, and even the people give a sense of the place, in a more mundane manner. The photo teaches. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)