Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:FPC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to current candidates Skip to current candidates

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

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

Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and current month.

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

Formal things[edit]

Nominating[edit]

Guidelines for nominators[edit]

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio[edit]

Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines.

Set nominations[edit]

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

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

Adding a new nomination[edit]

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

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

All single files:

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

All set nomination pages should begin "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/", e.g. "Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/My Nomination".


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

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

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

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

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

Voting[edit]

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

You may use the following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policy[edit]

General rules[edit]

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

Featuring and delisting rules[edit]

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

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

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

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

Above all, be polite[edit]

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

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

See also[edit]

Table of contents[edit]

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

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

Contents

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

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Villa Igiea a Palermo salone liberty 3 porte.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2018 at 08:20:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ballroom hotel Villa Igiea Palermo.

File:Rock dove (Columba livia) walking on place de la Bourse, Brussels, Belgium (DSCF4422).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2018 at 20:54:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rock dove on Place de la Bourse, BE
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Those people are part of what lead me to nominate this picture. They are omnipresent in the pigeon's life and practically blind to the pigeon's existence, yet these people are small and insignificant blurs in the background like the birds we normally clone out of pictures. In my opinion they are an important part of the change of perspective. --Trougnouf (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dirty pigeon, more repulsive than touching in my view, ordinary light and disturbing background -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - They're city birds. Just like homeless people, it's hard for them to keep clean. But it's not for lack of trying. I observe pigeons a lot because they roost across from my bathroom, and they spend a lot of time grooming themselves and their partners. On the other hand, they crap everywhere, including in their nests, so that's pretty dirty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Life in the cities is hard for many species, rats and cockroaches included. But try to nominate a dirty flower here, even if there are excellent reasons for this flower to be ugly (pollution, car gaz, poor light, fuel oil, etc.), the emotion won't come. There's no poetry in this pigeon on asphalt, in my eyes. Taking pictures of people is difficult, since humans are conscious, while no personality right is needed with an animal. Nevertheless not any photograph of homeless people is good, just because "life is hard" for them, too. The picture has to show something, either an environment, a situation, a moving facial expression, a particular action, etc. If there's nothing else than a body, the subject is too ordinary -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but a wider crop at the top would definitely be preferred. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I wouldn't mind changing the width but Ikan Kekek made the opposite request so I would do it based on a consensus. --Trougnouf (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basile --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I see this as an environmental portrait, and I think there are a lot of things that this picture does right. On the technical level, the subject is sharp and clearly identified, it stands out against the background, there's plenty of lead room in the direction it's walking, the lighting is appropriate with a niche little catchlight. The background is blurry enough for it not to be disturbing, but still identifiable as some kind of street scene.
On the story telling level, this is the attempt to take the viewer into the world of a street pigeon; and it mostly succeeds at that. The casual tourist might have shot this bird (if at all) from above, but Trougnouf did the right thing by going down to almost eye level. Great! Of course, in the world of city pigeons the environment mainly consists of human-made structures, cars and people, so it is very fitting that these make up the background here instead of the greenery we normally see in bird portraits. Love it!
So why am I not going for support then? Well, first I find the pose of the bird a bit awkward. It seems to be somewhere in-between sitting and walking, or maybe between two steps. Second, I think an even lower angle with the camera at or below the bird's eye level could have had a much more immersive effect. Right now, we're close to the bird's world, but we haven't really entered it yet, as we're still slightly looking down. We're still an observer, not part of its world. So close, but not quite there … --El Grafo (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Cart is right, forget the lower angle … --El Grafo (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
You don't agree that the pigeon is clearly walking? It has picked its left foot up a bit as part of its step. I watch pigeons walking all the time. Many of them are not quite as close to the ground - this one is not only bedraggled, perhaps it is a bit cautious in this crowded place, I'm not sure. But it's definitely walking. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
It's more about the position of the head, which looks a bit … neckless. I know they retract and extend their neck when they walk, so I guess it is indeed walking. But it still looks strange to me compared to this … --El Grafo (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm... No neck, hunched, heavy gait, scruffy-looking, big body... I'm gonna call that bird "Winston". ;) --Cart (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the first part of El Grafo's reasoning, but not the second part. Any lower angle would not have isolated the bird against the background. A low angle almost inevitable makes the background interfere with a small subject. Anyway, it's not a pretty picture, in fact it's downright ugly, but it is interesting, well composed and not the kind of bird pic we usually get here, that will make a photo go a long way. Such photos also have a place at FP IMO. --Cart (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basile--Ermell (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Bohdan Khmelnytsky Kiev 2018 G2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2018 at 06:55:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Bohdan Khmelnytsky Monument in Kiev
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a good idea, but taking a picture of an equestrian monument is one of the toughest tasks: the horse is usually placed in a very high position and depending on the hour of the day you will have problems with the sun that might disturb so that you can not take the subject from the right angle. Here the profile of head of the horse, which is a main part of the horse, is not visible and the result is quite an uninteresting shape where horse and rider create an amorphous figure, IMO. I like the background, though even if it looks a bit false with its pinkish tone.Paolobon140 (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your review. The sky here is displayed naturally, without any special effect of Photoshop. It is a thin layer of clouds at sunset with uncommon color at present time. The viewpoint is really low because the square with the monument is surrounded by high buildings. This photo was published several times in the news feeds of Kiev and Ukraine, because it really attracts attention and has a free license. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it and like to support art photos --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The statue actually looks as if it was moving. I've no problem with the sky, I see that color often through my window. --Cart (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think we had one from the same angle which we were cool about because of the overcast sky. This one is different. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Weird angle. Same than this one in my view. The silhouette is dark and lacks detail. The picture too contrasted for me. The shape is not clear, the rock too dominant. From this point of the bottom, it puts me in a position of subordination, and the fact that this "hero" is also known to be a tyrant and mass murderer doesn't help to appreciate. I feel crushed -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I also find the angle quite weird. It almost looks like the horse's head is directly attached to its torso without a neck in-between. I think there are some better compositions in the category for this monument that give a more faithful view of the statue while still avoid any buildings in the background. --El Grafo (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Pato aguja africano (Anhinga rufa), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 46.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 22:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Exemplar of African darter (Anhinga rufa) looking for fish in the Chobe River, Chobe National Park, Botswana.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Exemplar of African darter (Anhinga rufa) looking for fish in the Chobe River, Chobe National Park, Botswana. All by me, Poco2 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 22:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Nice, but head could be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan.Symbol support vote.svg Support now Daniel Case (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    A tough review, I believe. This is wild life, very high resolution, 600 m lens required, taken from a moving boat,... I've uploaded a new version with some extra sharpening. FYI Ikan Kekek, Daniel Case --Poco2 18:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
    I think this might be a tiny bit unfair in that the image is being penalised for being high resolution. If you downsize to about 3000px across - still well above the size limit for FPC, and above the size of some fairly recently-promoted images - the head looks sharp. It isn't even that bad at full size. 131.111.184.8 20:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
No-one is saying it's bad. The fact is, the great wildlife photos nominated here by various people including Charles and Martin Falbisoner have brought with them a very high standard. I can well imagine Charles pointing out that the focus is not on the head but on the back. Also, I am judging the photo at 300% of my 13-inch laptop, not at full size, so while it would be unfair to penalize the image for being high-resolution, I am not doing that. I also haven't voted against a feature. I like the photo, but the rest of my remark stands, as I still think the head could be sharper - maybe not in this shot, but in another one which would be an obvious FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharpening artifacts but still nice. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The dynamic background is another plus! Btw., I think I've never nominated any wildlife pic, Ikan. I'd love to though... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I thought you nominated birds in California. Sorry for the confusion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ikan, I think that you mean Frank Schulenburg --Poco2 20:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Amanita muscaria 2018 G01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 21:42:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fly agaric

File:Perchtoldsdorf Pfarrkirche Innenraum 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 15:11:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of the parish church Perchtoldsdorf, Lower Austria

File:Foro Romano Musei Capitolini Roma.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 10:14:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Roman Forum from the Capitoline Museums in Rome.

File:Swissôtel The Stamford reflecting in the water.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 08:46:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Skyscraper Swissôtel The Stamford reflecting in the basin of the roof garden at level 6 of the National Gallery in Singapore
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Singapore
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. The only thing that bothers me a bit is the cut off box on the left but it's FP-worthy anyway. --Basotxerri (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I find this architecture a bit cold and corporate-authoritarian, but it's nonetheless impressive, and what I feel to be its arrogant grandeur is well-captured in this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan Kekek. --Cayambe (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. --Cart (talk) 14:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose The image did make me stop when I was scrolling through, it's that striking, but too much of it is unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. Impressive. No problem with sharpness in my eyes.--Milseburg (talk) 12:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This scenery is not striking me, and lighting conditions and sharpness could be better. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Phlox paniculata 'Fujiyama' (d.j.b.) 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2018 at 07:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Haukilahti marina, Espoo (October 2018).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2018 at 22:29:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Haukilahti marina in Espoo, Finland.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Finland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Very peaceful, but too much empty space in the sky and water for me to feel wowed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Harsh light, strong shadows. Too early in the evening for a pleasant mirror effect. I also find the format not adapted. As Ikan says, there's too much sky and water. Perhaps a 2:1 crop would improve a bit, at least to get rid of the distracting branch at the bottom left corner -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan and Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To me this is an ordinary and not very special marina photo, and there is the harsh light too. Sorry. --Cart (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Alternative recropped image.

Haukilahti marina, Espoo (October 2018, crop).jpg


  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Daniel Case, Basile Morin, Ikan Kekek: I recropped the image to 2:1, what do you think, is it any better? --Msaynevirta (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Still oppose It addresses the too-much-earth-and-sky issue, but not the harsh light and shadows noted by Basile (and, by reincorporation, me). To be honest even if these weren't problems it doesn't really stand out from so many other pictures of waterfronts. Daniel Case (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Much better. I find the light normal, not harsh. What I'm still not sure about, though, is whether the remaining largely undifferentiated sky and only slightly ripply water provides sufficient eye movement to complement the nice arc. I'll live with this a little longer, but I'm liking the feeling of this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Still oppose Even if the scenery is quiet and peaceful, it is counterbalanced by the hard light which creates agressive contrasts -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same as above. --Cart (talk) 14:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Dehnbare Helmling Mycena epipterygia.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 15:32:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Beautiful, but for FP, really should be sharper, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support For me the sharpness is acceptable here. I like the composition, the light, the moss in the foreground and particularly the gelatinous appearance of these mushrooms. But it seems that the picture has been downsized, measuring exactly 3,000 × 2,100 pixels -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support per Basile Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Biguatinga Tomando Sol.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 15:28:22 (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 & uploaded by LeonardoRamos - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background is noisy; also it's kind of busy and distracting even without that being an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice but the branch is a bit too much eye-catching Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I propose a tighter crop (see note) to get rid of a large part of the darkness behind. Though I'm not sure to support because I don't really like the flashlight, I think the bird is sharp and the image worth this improvement -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:L'insurrection des vaisseaux L'America et Le Léopard (6 septembre 1790).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 10:26:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • I think that's right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Attention, ce n'est pas comparable : Les fichiers ont a peu près la même définition mais cette image est deux fois plus petite que l'autre (24 x 29 cm pour celle-ci et 65x50 pour l'autre). La gravure est beaucoup plus fine, c'est ça qui change. A force de zoomer sur un écran on oubli qu'au départ y a une feuille de papier d'une certaine dimension (et qu'elle a plus de deux cents ans). Les lignes sont distinctes, le dessin est claire et net, moins que l'autre mais c'est normal. La source est gallica, et c'est à peu près ce qu'on trouve de mieux en matière de reproduction. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Saint Faith Abbey Church of Conques 22.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 09:37:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saint Faith Abbey Church of Conques, Aveyron, France
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#France
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This photo has 3rd place in WLM 2018 in France. A bit similar to this photo, which is FP. Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But im not sure this is the best result you could get by such a scene: the right part is too bright, too much detailed and too much colourful. The central part, which is meant to be the main subject, is not as bright as the right part, which should be a secondary part in the composition. Vignetting and a slight darkening of the whole right part would be a great improvement to an already excellent composition with flaws about lightening.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No added vignetting please! --Cart (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    A good vignetting would hide the evidently too much bright right part of the composition which is not intended to be the main subject but comes out clearer thn the subject. That right part is killing the whole photograph IMO,Paolobon140 (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Per Paolobon, the entire right, up to the road edge, needs to be cropped out. I can understand what the photographer wanted to show us, what he saw, but it was more than the photograph could handle. But the church by itself could be featured. Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The view is beautiful, but with all of that on the right of the church and nothing on the left, it feels unbalanced. The linked photo has a different kind of balance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The edges catch the eye too much, being very contrasty and strongly sharpened, as well as being out of the mist. The vignette-to-focus-on-centre proposal is old already, with limited acceptability on a educational media repository and an outdoor scene. Anyway, the centre clouds are a little blown so drawing the eye towards them, and away from the church, wouldn't work. I think the image has been a bit over-processed, with a bit too much local contrast and sharpening (the woman's t-shirt has steps on the diagonal). I'll suggest a crop. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm surprised that I can nearly always recognize Tournasol7's pictures at first sight here and in QIC, just because they are heavily processed. I think you should try to keep everything (colors, saturation, contrasts, etc.) more natural -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This kind of processing is the signature of the photographer and you are admitting that its his signature: it is a big result for a photographer and a big compliment to Tournasol7. Among dozen of undistinguished pictures shown here where the only problem is wether they are enough sharp or not in the very top left pixel, this kind of images are a gift becasue they show a creative signature. Photography is also made of colour processing. I would suggest you to try to cross-process some of your pics and enjoy the result. Lookf of photographs have changed a lot in the last decades and heavy colour processing is very fashionable lately. By the way, why is black and white accepted here? Black and white is a very evident colour processing.Paolobon140 (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, actually fashion isn't a sign of individual creativity. Following the herd to get a tattoo or beard, say, is more a sign of conformance to the group than independent thinking. Fashions come and go, and an educational media repository like Commons tends to value images that stick close to reality. Anyone can take a photograph of an Italian church interior, push the Clarity/Highlights/Shadows/Sharpness sliders around with a heavy hand, and expect folk who've never seen the church to have their eyes pop. There's a place for photos that adopt a certain style, but I wouldn't want heavy colour processing to be fashionable at Commons FP. While it might be fun to look at a movie and recognise it was colour graded in a way popular for 2018, I would prefer if the photos on Commons were timeless. Back and white works for the very reason that it doesn't make any pretence to represent the scene's colour: the viewer is not tricked. The guidelines for Commons FP require that significant post-processing be documented. -- Colin (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Many photographers here have developed a distinct and recognizable style. I've even seen voters refer to photos as being in "Cart style". However, almost none of these photographers have relied on effects or over-processing to achieve that style. You don't need to pull out every toy in the tool box to get a signature, it has more to do about chasing a certain light, subject, angle and composition. Btw Paolobon140, since Basile is a recognized artist, I don't think he needs to be told that he can play with colors. :-) Since you don't know the people behind the signatures here, I suggest you treat users here more like your equals than someone with their first camera. When we post photos here, we sort of try to keep them in the style of the Commons project. That doesn't mean we don't know any other styles. --Cart (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This post-process is not a personal touch in my view, but more like a heavy make-up. You can put 3 kilos foundation every morning on your face to try to be beautiful, this is just artificial and spoiling your natural appearance. My comment was not a compliment. Paolobon140 fails in the interpretation. Instagram is certainly a better place to play with trendy filters to transform everything normal into magically impossible -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per discussion above. I don't think the proposed crop would save it for me, either, as it would still be unbalanced, due to the left crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Bamberg Cafe Rondo am Schönleinsplatz 9201807.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2018 at 08:23:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Former waiting hall of the former Reichspostdirektion. Today used as a café.
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for infor; this one has a 1st place in WLM 2018 in Germany. --Tournasol7 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very delicate light. --Cart (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cart. Travel-guide worthy (or let's try it auf Deutsch: Reiseführerwürdig). Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A very rationalistic picture, as rationalistic the buidling is. Rationalism was not a big fan of trees near buildings though, and I think that tree on the left is quite "a punch in the eye":-) I wonder if there was a way to avoide the presence of the tree.Paolobon140 (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nice, but I think the highlights have been decreased too much, because the dark parts look a bit grey. HDR or selective correction would have been better -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 15:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The picture reminds me of Edward Hoppers painting NIghtthawks--Christof46 (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Paolobon140's remark. The encroaching tree creates tension that I think hurts the photo. If you had moved somewhat to your right (if possible) and created enough separation between the tree and the building, I would have likely supported. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Vanha voimalaitos.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 22:32:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vaajakoski old power plant
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by TeuvoSalmenjoki - nominated by Msaynevirta -- Msaynevirta (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Msaynevirta (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Has a lot of elements that by themselves would work but altogether overwhelm the viewer. Perhaps at least if you cropped in from the left a little ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good management of the light colour.--Ermell (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is techically very well taken, with good balance of colours and light. Did you use a tripod? But i agree there are too many object in it, starting with those trees which are more disturbing than pleasant in my taste. The reflection is too heavy, with hese kind of compositions based on such a heavy reflection i would rather try to avoid any object which is not the main subject, the buidling.Paolobon140 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 03:35, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Oleg (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 15:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Eternal Procession.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 02:48:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Sigh. I have to agree with the criticism of the horizon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good motive but unfortunately not very well implemented technically. The sky should be darker so that the noise is not so disturbing. Besides, the horizon is quite sloping.--Ermell (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per other --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really can't see the reason for the tilted horizon. Also the merge of what I think are two photos, one of the rocks and one of the sky and lights, is not very well done. The sky is too noisy in comparison to the land. --Cart (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: - Any comment concerning merge? --Neptuul (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Image:20180819 Panorama ReutteBerge DSC00900 cut PtrQs.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Nov 2018 at 01:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mountain ranges east of Reutte/Tyrol in summer's early morning light.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by PtrQs - uploaded by PtrQs - nominated by PtrQs -- PtrQs (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- PtrQs (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Evocative and beautiful. You half expect to find some vertical lines of kanji characters somewhere on this "scroll". --Cart (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop is too tight for me at the bottom, I miss the valleys. --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Uoaei1, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there were reasons to cut the lower 600px of the original stitch. Below the frame you see, the shadows drop and the contrast vanishes. So instead of graded silhouettes like in the peaks you only see areas with few contours. As this happens especially on the left side and there the edge of the effect looks rather sharp, I'd call it unbalanced. So I decided to crop it like this. --PtrQs (talk) 22:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose useless for encyclopaedia Pan Tau (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project."
FPs are not just for the encyclopedia, they are also for all the other WikiProjects (take a look at the list at the bottom of the main page) plus those we don't even know about yet, so ALL sorts of really good photos are welcome. --Cart (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
My rating is my personal opinion. So don't proselytize me. Pan Tau (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok then. Thanks for teaching me a new English word: "proselytize". I didn't know that one. :) --Cart (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful landscape. --Msaynevirta (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Uoaei1. Doesn't really work for me structurally. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Uoaei1 & Pan Tau --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good for a web banner but format is absolutely a problem as a photograph.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Paolobon140, I've read that you are satisfied by 20x30 cm handouts. But in this format every picture of a full mountain range would present only some millimeters of rock and a real lot of sky above. So maybe you could spend some time and look up the definition of 'panorama'? --PtrQs (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, well, assuming that an Italian speaker like me must know what "panorama" means (and most probably a greek speaker even more) I perfectly understand that you might love this kind of format. Personally I do not appreciate this format unless is used as a web banner or printed and hanged on a wall. But still, even on a web banner or sticked on a wall i do not appreciate this photograph, I find it too panoramic, too large and not enough high. I gave my explanation which seems to be similar to others who wrote "Doesn't really work for me structurally" (i must imagine its more or less what i worte too). Techincally it is a well done work but still i dont feel to vote it as a Featured picture for the reasons i said above. I appreciate a lot the smothness of tones and the different tones. But i also find the mountain on the right too visible and dark, catching much of my attention, while in a panoramic picture i expect to let my eye go around without being captured by a single detail.Paolobon140 (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Adolfo Wildt (1868-1931) Carattere fiero-Anima gentile 3 (1912).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 19:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Adolfo Wildt (1868-1931) Carattere fiero-Anima gentile 3 (1912).jpg
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Paolobon140 - uploaded by Paolobon140 - nominated by Paolobon140 -- One of the masteripeces of sculptor Adolfo Wildt; yellowish tone is typical of Wildt's way to treat marble, I chose to divide the pic in 2 area, keeping the lower one as negative space; vignetting is natural, and given by illumination on the scenePaolobon140 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paolobon140 (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Do we really need all of the pedestal? It's dark and doesn't really add anything to the image. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, in my opinion: the picture is evidently formed by 2 distinct parts: a bright golden one with the main subject at the top (eyes start looking at one object from the top, usually) and a black one at the bottom which creates a large negative space which emphasizes the top part by giving more strenghth to the sculpure and visibility. Tha lower part might even be seen as a kind of "bust" of the head, with shoulders and body. The sculpture itself is quite complicated to be framed becasue of its shape and this picture doesnt want to be a simple description of the sculpture, but wants to create a kind of atmosphere around the sculputure. No square composition was allowed here, so choice was one only. Vignetting and bottom black part area intended to focus atention on the sculpture. Paolobon140 (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A "heavy" compo, like something you'd see in a Batman or Marvel album, but such a compo needs to be flawless and the cut corner on the top is the pedestal really bugs me, even if you probably aren't responsible for how the sculpture was displayed. Also technical quality is not up to what might be expected from a static shot, lots of red CA, chromatic noise and a bit too short DoF. Camera settings might not have been optimal. --Cart (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment. I will not discuss about composition, that is the composition i chose becasue it was the one i liked the most and your taste is most respectful. Only thing id say is that the heavy composition fits the heavy expression of the face...For the quality i often have the sensation, here, that commenters are putting an over attention on the pixels. Digital photography produces large files which, when printed, become much smaller than the file itself. Many of the small details you can see at full size disappear in a normal format print. Just for information: one picture of the same set (different sculpure with different marble tones, same sculptor, but same camera settings, same place, same day and same hand of the photographer), is the cover of one quite good book by a well known editor. The editor didn't find any flaw in the file and printed it with a perfect result. When we had to print from films it was the opposite way and small flaws on the negative would look more evident in prints. A kind of photograph like this gives its best if printed at some 20x30 cm. Paolobon140 (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, we are much more fastidious here than most publication editors. If the technical level can be improved in post-processing or by re-shooting the photo, we would like it too be. We can overlook such things if the "wow" is so great that the situation/composition overrules the technical issues. Regarding the "heavy" compo, I never said that it was a negative thing, just commented on what kind of compo it was and as such I'd like it to be flawless for an FP. --Cart (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Btw, googling "Carattere fiero-Anima gentile" I see that the marble is a bit yellowish, but not as much as in this photo. This saturation makes it look almost waxy and not like marble. --Cart (talk) 12:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yellow is much more stronger than you see in other pics; i think other pics are taken with those cameras that balance everything till it gets white. Wildt was famous for his yellow marbles, obtained by shining marble with urine and tobacco. This picture is very close to the original tone but the museum, in tht occasion, chose a yellowish illumination to enhance the golden tones of marble. I reproduced exactly what the human eye was seeing in that exposition. It was a choice by the light designer. In the book cover you will see a less yellow tone becasue that sculputure is less yellow itself and light was chosen whiter.Paolobon140 (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This is one of the cases in which our tastes differ. A photo that's utterly pitch black in the lower half doesn't work for me, or at least this one doesn't. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and the top of the face is not very sharp (the top is likely a bit out of focus). Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for now, cropping half of the pedestal would probably garner my support though. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Baby Huwae, c 1963, Tati Photo Studio 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 18:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Baby Huwae, Indonesian film actress and singer
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tati Photo Studio, restored and uploaded by Crisco 1492, nominated by Yann (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yann (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seven Pandas (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I would vote to support, but are watermarks allowed in historical photos? I hope so and would like for it to remain in the photo, but I think it's important to resolve the question. Normally, no copyrights or watermarks are allowed for featured photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 17:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Gaura lindheimeri, prachtkaars. (actm) 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2018 at 17:54:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants Gaura lindheimeri, 'Whirling Butterflies' #Family Onagraceae.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Elegant small flower between the flower buds of the Gaura lindheimeri.
    All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In many shots like this I would complain about the bluish whitebalance, but with these flowers and setting I think it works for the photo in a melancholy way. --Cart (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cart; the bluish tint nicely counterbalances the hot pink. Daniel Case (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment too noisy at the moment. Charles (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background is very distracting and the main subject gets lost in it. A shallower dof would be better.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice square. The temperature is a bit cold but the composition is working in my view because all the colorful parts of the background are well separated in space from the main subject. Flower popping from its texture. The DoF makes the object totally in focus, including the stem and the buds -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The plant is great but the background is so "busy" that I feel tension when looking at this photo. Maybe if you faded the background further, I might react differently. The bottom crop is a little close, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Background slightly blurred. Thank you.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Thanks. That doesn't seem like a big change, but it feels different enough for me to relax. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Alpine House, Kew Gardens, 2018 edit.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 18:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

New version of recently defeatured image
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#United Kingdom
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is actually the back half of an unintentional slow delist and replace. After my 2015 version was recently demoted due to the discovery that its margin of promotion had been due to one now-banned user !voting twice with one of his sock accounts, I looked at it and decided against renominating it as it was since a) I'm not totally sure as it was that I would have voted for it if someone else had nominated it and b) I have learned more about editing my images since then. I also realized that some of the oppose !votes in the original had had some points.

    So, instead, I dragged out the original raw file and started from scratch. The result is an image that I would definitely support if someone else nominated it ... less brightness on the building and the clouds and thus easier on the eyes, its perspective slightly corrected, and not cropped in as much at the left so we can see a bit more of its locational context. (I would also like to thank Cart for one last tweak she suggested).

    I see this as not just a worthy candidate but a testament to how regular participation in this forum can help us grow and improve at our art. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yep. The Star Trek building is definitely better than before, so here is my vote. --Cart (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lower part of the picture is quite messy. The guy on the left and the cut-off signs on the right do not belong in on the image, the lamppost on the left is not vertical. That' s no FP for me.--Ermell (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, to live in a world where all lampposts really are vertical. I never assume that a lamppost is perfectly vertical IRL. --Cart (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info. Of course I don't think that all the lampposts are vertical, but you can see here that the image is distorted, which is nothing unusual with the focal length used. But one could try to change that. Just because the building has no horizontals or verticals nobody is bothered by it.--Ermell (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ermell: I have cropped the image at bottom and left to eliminate those two things. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That looks much better, but the guy with the camera doesn't make any sense at all.--Ermell (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
You know, I honestly didn't realize he was there until I started working on the image again, as I'd cropped him out of the first one. And I decided this time that, given that the first one had been criticized as a little tight (or at least I remember that it was), I would give it more space on the left since the heavy building was on the right. I agree it is a question of taste and might be the sort of thing I'd object to in other images (especially since he's shooting something outside the image). But judging by the !votes here, not many other people mind. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But the guy is annoying! Charles (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, and I agree that this is a better composition than the 2015 version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite some unsharpness in the corners --Llez (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:19, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 20:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:08, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a messy composition, too many things, too many objects, too many clouds, too many colours and mainly, no depth.Paolobon140 (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice compo, great sky Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Bologoe asv2018-08 img04.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 14:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

L-type steam locomotive in Bologoye
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Rail vehicles
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An L-class steam locomotive in operation at Bologoye-2 railway station, Tver Oblast, Russia ------ all by A.Savin --A.Savin 14:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A.Savin 14:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice old Soviet lady! The little platform in front is a bit disturbing as it partially hides the wheels. --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Peulle (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely a QI if that were sought, but for me it has too many distracting elements—not just the platform, but the buildings, trees and tracks, for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rich in detail. --Milseburg (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I'm with Daniel here. The light is also rather glary, making it unpleasant to look at. --Cart (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose platform. Charles (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor sublject and poor composition, the trains gets lost in the building in the back.Paolobon140 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great colours, pleasant light and nice subject. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Building behind, distracting, and cut lines at the bottom -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Karelj (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

File:M81.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 07:15:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

M81 also known as Bode's Galaxy is around 12 million light years away. It has an irregular satellite galaxy known as Holmberg IX.

File:Young girl smiling with teeth in sunshine.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 02:32:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young girl smiling with teeth in sunshine
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Evocative.--Peulle (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good portrait, almost too detailed at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no wow, no depth, too much dof, dull light and a simple composition. This pic might have been taken enywhere in the wordl, nothing that adds that special feeling about a distant country. That prt of her right arm really look like a disturb and the tree above her hada shoud not be there. Paolobon140 (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "...that special feeling about a distant country." There are no distant countries on Commons, we all depict what we have in "our own backyard" on equal terms, and the Wikimedia project is way past orientalism, thankfully. --Cart (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, i dont know what Orientalism is and actually im not much interested in knowing what it means as I have spent years all over in Asia. We are commenting on a picture that you have selected to be a Featured picture. Im an italian, and when i see a close portrait of some person who seems to live on the other side of the world, id like to see what is around that person, how she is dressed, what makes her look different from the people i see around in my country, how is the world around that person. I want to see something "special", "particular", "different", i want to see a small piece of Asia in a picture. If not we are obliged to judge your pic for what it is, a very close portrait of a smiling little kid. Your choise to shoot a close portait, cutting everything which is not the face of the model (you even cut her 2 arms), and then let's judge the portrait without talking about Orientalism. Close portraits have rules, and i think you didnt follow any of those rules for a good close portait. She might be african, esquimese, american, albanese, chinese, but it remains a dull close portrait. We can then comment on the techinque of your portrait and I find it quite a dull normal portrait with no depth that anybody with a mobile phone can take. What did your photographic art or skill add? For me you didnt add anything. Should i comment on the beauty of the subject? She is not a particulr beauty in my eyes, she has an average childish siling expression which is cute but can be seen on the face of any child around the world. Should i comment on the lighting you chose? There is no lighting, there is a frontal single light (the sun) that makes a heavy shadow under her chin. Should i comment on how good this close portrait is composed? I see one tree above her hair which shouldnt be there and a large spot on the right side of the photo, just near her hear. What elese should I say? When i see a close portrait [http://www.repubblica.it/speciali/arte/2016/01/15/foto/ragazza_afgana_steve_mccurry_foto_all_asta-131322463/1/#1 i would like to see a picture like this becasue the photographer chose the model and found the way to make thta model look extraordinry. Ew are selecting Featured pictures for Commons, why should i be contented with a simple portrait? Lets try to make something better, this is what i expect personally.Paolobon140 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That's not Cart's nomination -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

File:The Bubble Nebula - NGC 7635 - Heic1608a.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Nov 2018 at 02:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Bubble Nebula, also known as NGC 7635, is an emission nebula located 8,000 light-years away. This stunning new image was observed by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope to celebrate its 26th year in space.
  • Better than normal. But this is FPC, not QIC. If photos by non-Commoners were eligible for QI, this would be a no-brainer QI. I'm quite unsure it's an FP, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Gallina de Guinea (Numida meleagris), parque nacional Kruger, Sudáfrica, 2018-07-25, DD 48.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2018 at 19:47:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Helmeted guineafowl (Numida meleagris), Kruger National Park, South Africa.
+1 Daniel Case (talk) Symbol support vote.svg Support now. 23:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
+1 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Charles, Daniel, Martin: ✓ Done --Poco2 18:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support much better. Charles (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 10:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Lighting is a bit too harsh, I would've given an oppose but I wouldn't like to ruin your day if someone else supports. However, if another user comes along and agrees with me I might change my vote. Nice try though. :-) ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 02:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Fri 16 Nov → Wed 21 Nov
Sat 17 Nov → Thu 22 Nov
Sun 18 Nov → Fri 23 Nov
Mon 19 Nov → Sat 24 Nov
Tue 20 Nov → Sun 25 Nov
Wed 21 Nov → Mon 26 Nov

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

Mon 12 Nov → Wed 21 Nov
Tue 13 Nov → Thu 22 Nov
Wed 14 Nov → Fri 23 Nov
Thu 15 Nov → Sat 24 Nov
Fri 16 Nov → Sun 25 Nov
Sat 17 Nov → Mon 26 Nov
Sun 18 Nov → Tue 27 Nov
Mon 19 Nov → Wed 28 Nov
Tue 20 Nov → Thu 29 Nov
Wed 21 Nov → Fri 30 Nov

Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]

The bot[edit]

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

Manual procedure[edit]

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a human user to complete it.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2018), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request[edit]

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2018.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.
  5. If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.

Archiving a withdrawn nomination[edit]

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    In the purpose that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|category=|sig=--~~~~}}
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2018), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.