Commons:Featured picture candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, 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 and current month.

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

Formal things[edit]

Nominating[edit]

Guidelines for nominators[edit]

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio

Set nominations

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

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

Adding a new nomination[edit]

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

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

All single files:

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


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 following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policy[edit]

General rules[edit]

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

Featuring and delisting rules[edit]

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

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

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

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

Above all, be polite[edit]

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

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

See also[edit]

Table of contents[edit]

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

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

Contents

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

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Equus zebra hartmannae - Etosha 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2016 at 08:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Equus zebra hartmannae - Etosha

File:Ahja jõe ürgorg.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2016 at 04:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ahja river in Estonia
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by MinuHiiumaa - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is not among the very best pictures of Estonia that I've seen featured on this site, but I do like it quite well enough to support a feature. I like how the light brown reeds in the lower right corner are rhymed by the light brown dirt on the other side of the lake at the middle left. I also find the entire composition harmonious and restful. In fact, the more I look at this composition, the more I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – An image of high artistic merit. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Kõnnu Suursoo. 10.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2016 at 04:07:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden hour in Kõnnu Suursoo bog
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Aleksandr Abrosimov - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is another one that's grown on me. At first, I doubted I'd vote to support this photo, and if you zoom to full size, it looks like the details are blurred by the golden sun. But look at it at full-page size and move your eyes around it, and you may find that it's a great picture. One question, though: Is the sun rising or setting? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Maria Carolina of Austria in the Palace of Caserta.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 21:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Maria Carolina of Austria in the Palace of Caserta

File:AT 119587 Jesuitenkirche Wien Innenansicht 9185.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 20:07:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jesuit church, Vienna

File:Eingangsbereich der Ruhmeshalle, HGM, Wien 0400 1 2 3 4.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 20:01:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Entrance area of the Hall of Fame, Museum of Military history, Vienna.

File:Faustulus - Mosaic de Font de Mussa - Museu de Prehistòria de València.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 18:05:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Detail of Faustulus as seen in the Font de Mussa Mosaic exhibited in the Prehistory Museum of Valencia. Is one of the few existant artworks portraying Faustulus dating from the Ancient age.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It was released by the Museum, a ORTS ticket is on the way.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not only per Jebulon's concerns, but this doesn't seem like the best possible picture of this mosaic. I haven't seen it so I don't know if this the whole thing, although I suspect it isn't. If it isn't, then these odd crops were avoidable. Add that to the barely-eligible size of the image, and what you have is a well-done tourist snaphot, but no better (A QI maybe). Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Shirley Chisholm.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 14:28:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shirley Chisholm
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Thomas J. O'Halloran - lightly restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - It's good to see a picture of Shirley Chisholm again, one of my parents' favorite politicians. Good picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. Iconic picture of iconic woman with iconic hairstyle (Face-wink.svg). And just in time for Black History Month in the U.S. Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Blad van beuk (Fagus sylvatica) 02.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 06:35:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Olympiastadion Berlin Innenansicht.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 06:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"View from the Marathon Gate into the Olympiastadion in Berlin"
@Ikan Kekek: No, it's already in that category by virtue of being in its own subcategory of Category:Olympiapark Berlin, which is a subcat of Category:Nazi architecture in Berlin. I did, however, add Category:Symmetry impressions of buildings Daniel Case (talk) 17:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 17:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support Such wonderful symmetry! I love the sort of forced perspective as well ... at first scroll I thought it was some circular structure on supports seen from a distance. Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in memoriam Jesse Owens...--Jebulon (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Leuchtturm in Westerheversand.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 05:01:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Westerheversand Lighthouse in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany"

Alternative[edit]

Leuchtturm in Westerheversand crop

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I prefer without people and i crop the white part on the right --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I prefer this version, though I also would have been willing to support the original if not faced with this choice. The composition is beautiful and I love the clouds, which remind me of Dutch landscape paintings. I'm somewhat bothered by noise in the background, but perhaps that's from the exhaust from the plane or something, and anyway, I can't see it except at full size, so I'm tolerating it, given the overall beauty of the picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm more bothered by the CA than the noise, but it's a good enough picture that for me, the wow and EV override the technical defects. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose prefer the original with the people as a scale. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a little tighter and I like it better. Daniel Case (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better. --King of ♠ 04:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 09:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Eriophora transmarina in web at night.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2016 at 03:30:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Australian garden orb weaver at night. Perhaps I should have opted for a macro lens, but I don't own one, and I think this shot shows more context by including the web (this is a particularly neat example of their webs too). Combination of flash and LED torch only just gave me enough lighting at f/5.6, so I'm quite happy with the result.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work given the circumstances and equipment. Daniel Case (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic! --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Daniel's remarks. Obvious educational value, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I don't think you really needed a macro lens for this shot as the distance to subject seems good enough for this sort of composition. What I would say is that although this is clearly a difficult spider/web to photograph given the web only exists at night, the lighting does look extremely harsh and probably a bit overexposed. I prefer this image's lighting. Diliff (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Diliff: Thanks for the comment. I have a RAW file for this one, and you were right that there was some clipping on the spider on that particular export. I've reprocessed the image now. (This specimen is a lot less yellow than the one you linked; they vary widely in colour. But as you say, the lighting is harsh.) -- Thennicke (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Candelabra and frescos in Galleria Spada (Rome).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 20:28:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Candelabra and frescos in Galleria Spada (Rome)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain -- LivioAndronico (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The crop, cutting off part of the fresco (the colorful one; the other one looks good enough to me), is really not ideal. I find this picture good enough to support, and the composition is otherwise good, but I would like this picture a lot more if it had what would seem to me to be a more logical crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is not a good one, the chandelier* is not sharp, colours are bad, contrast... Plus, the distortion on the edges made this a pretty bad representation of frescos. The *... the name is correct? This is a celling, right? So it is a chandelier not a candelabra. -- RTA 11:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Wagrain Grießenkareck N-Panorama 20160130.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 17:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view northwards from Griessenkareck mountain near Wagrain, federal state of Salzburg
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas and Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Austria
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panoramic view northwards from Griessenkareck mountain near Wagrain, federal state of Salzburg. All by me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - These kinds of panoramas, when taken clearly in good light and edited well, are often impressive, I find. I'm curious: Are the parallel black rectangles toward the lower right of the picture a set of solar cells or something else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I do not know. But I have no clue what else it could be. Regards, --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could go further left and right for me. --Milseburg (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good and interesting --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 22:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Captures the look of a winter sky in late-afternoon light. I can almost feel a cold breeze against my cheek, and catch myself thinking it'll be time to start getting back down soon. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Daniel. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for light conditions. I am very curious to know of how many shots this panorama is made of--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lacerta agilis female 2014 G2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 17:24:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sand Lizard female

File:Lynmouth (Devon, UK), Harbour -- 2013 -- 4.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 17:20:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Harbour in Lynmouth, Devon, England
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Sailboats
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 17:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 17:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not that there aren't things to like about this—the lighting and the mood, and the way the blue bumpers jump out against the otherwise sedate colors. But I would like it more if, somehow, it was against a stone wall not interrupted two-thirds of the way up the mast by a metal railing (I know, there was probably nothing you could do about this). As it is, in addition to being a discordant element, it also made it harder to ignore the often inevitable loss of focus near the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support usualy, I am d´accord with Daniel, but in this case, I will give a weak support. It´s a difficult motif with not really positive colors. Therefore it is ok for me. --Hubertl 13:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Amari Agia Anna Fresco 02.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 17:01:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Byzantine fresco in the little church of Agia Anna (Αγία Άννα), Amari Valley, Crete

File:Traditional Moroccan shoes called "babouches".JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2016 at 14:57:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Picture of babouche shoes in a market in Fès.

File:Vale dos Deuses.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2016 at 23:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The trail to the Dragon's Head
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Shooterb9 - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous atmosphere. There's some unsharpness, but since most of the background is obscured by haze anyways, to me it's not a huge deal. --King of ♠ 02:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per King. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 05:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is it just me or is there in fact quite a lot of unsharpness, noise, etc.? Possibly badly overprocessed... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per King of Hearts. There's a bit of chromatic aberration on the grass in the near right corner, but that's a small part of the picture and I can see it only at full size. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Indeed a very nice pic and mood, but due to denoising or whatever unsharp. Where is the location? Please add. -- -donald- (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Absolutely fo Martin,very sorry but is real overprocessed --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice mood, but strong chromatic noise in the shadowed parts (please see note)--Jebulon (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment to @Martin Falbisoner, -donald-, Livioandronico2013, Jebulon: Thanks for all comments. It's fixable? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid the chroma noise is too strong to be corrected, in my opinion. One should denoise again, and...the picture will look posterized.--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality. -- RTA 12:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Golden laurel wreath T HL 04 Kerameikos Athens.png[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2016 at 22:00:49 (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 me -- Jebulon (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportThis very delicate and rare golden laurel wreath, made with more than 130 gold leaves during the Hellenistic period. Found in a tomb in the cemetery of the Kerameikos, now on display in the Kerameikos Archaeological Museum in Athens, Greece. This is a .png version, in the file history page, one can find a picture of this jewel with a transparent background, which can be used for any purpose. -- Jebulon (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beautiful and of obvious high encyclopedic and educational value. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I prefer a centered crop. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you Arion. As it is a .png version, only the main subject (the wreath) exists, the background is for presentation. There is no real background (transparency, please see history file page). Actually, you can use the wreath (which is not symmetrical, by the way: centering is difficult) alone.--Jebulon (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Changed to Symbol support vote.svg Support. Anyway it's FP for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Was this, or some other version, nominated recently? I seem to remember it, and I seem to remember that I !voted support then. Still good. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes you are almost right. I nominated a .jpg version, with the original bg. Hubertl asked for another bg, so I decided to withdraw immediately and to rework. It was very hard and difficult, but now you (and "Commons" !) have a picture "without" background. But you did not have the time to vote, as I withdrawed very quickly after the request. Thanks for interest.--Jebulon (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting object, very good quality. --Yann (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 11:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Archäologisches Nationalmuseum Athen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 22:08:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

National Archaeological Museum in Athens
  • I don't think so. Please look at the ground, the stairs and the shadow areas. Sky and red facade are OK in my opinion. Regards, -- Wolf im Wald 04:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I think that might just be a consequence of the short exposure and the sun being almost behind the camera. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Not properly categorized. ✓ Done--Jebulon (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The challenge was : nobody disturbing. Very nice.--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Immaculate and impeccable. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Griechische Nationalbibliothek.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 22:01:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

National Library of Greece in Athens, Greece

File:Zinnia elegans, plantation, Alhambra, Granada, Spain.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 21:01:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zinnia elegans, plantation, Alhambra, Granada, Spain
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose Posterization on flowers, more apparent closer to edges. It happens. Daniel Case (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks to Arion for his choice. I don't see any (significant or not) posterization on flowers, even on edges.--Jebulon (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm very confused. I've found so far that I don't have a good eye for posterization unless maybe it's blindingly obvious. Daniel, do you specifically refer to the middle-tone pinkish flowers, which at full size have less differentiation between their petals than the light pink flowers and many of the yellow ones? If so, then I see that, but at full-page size, the picture looks great. I'll give a vote of Symbol support vote.svg Support for this picture, but I would love a brief lesson on seeing posterization. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Well, I was talking about the red ones near the edges ... in my experience, if any color is likely to show posterization, it's red. For a better understanding read the article and look at the pictures. Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel. I've read the article before, but I didn't know there was a Commons category of Posterization. I do see what you're talking about in this photo, and I guess if you really look for it, you can see it at full-page size. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to interfere 🤔, is there automatical posterization because of red ? Or is there any posterization in real ? I know what is posterization, I knew the article and the category, but I doubt that this picture could be a good illustration for this "posterization category"...--Jebulon (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I was just explaining this to Ikan and passing along my personal observations. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, fine for me. Interesting anyway ! Thanks for comments and interest.--Jebulon (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I hope our side discussion of posterization didn't discourage people from voting on this picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Strange phenomenon indeed, frequently noticed here, regretfully...--Jebulon (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If this photo gets completely ignored, I'd suggest you resubmit it in a few weeks, and I won't ask for a lesson in posterization then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, Zamek Tarnowskich 02.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 18:02:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dzikovia Castle in Tarnobrzeg

File:Linden power plant Elisenstrasse Ihme river Linden-Nord Hannover Germany 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 15:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ChristianSchd - uploaded by ChristianSchd - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Surprisingly pretty power plant. There's one spot on the left where the trees are disturbingly out of focus, and I'm not sure why that happened, but it can be seen only at full size, so I'm tolerating it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. The spot noted by Ikan seems to be motion blur of the branches and is therefore pretty normal. --Code (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question They were swaying in the wind, then? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Probably. Look at the very long exposure time. --Code (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • 311 seconds, if I understand right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 17:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 18:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Possible posterization of color on buildings forgivable given long exposure. Daniel Case (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Navires à contre jour au large de Portsmouth - img 25039.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 13:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ships silhouetted at the entrance of Portsmouth
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Sun
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ships silhouetted at the entrance of Portsmouth (this is my own simple translation from Pmau's description; French speakers welcome to improve it). I stumbled across this image and thought it deserved a nomination; great timing and colours, and I like the factories in the background.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Pmau; nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very interesting: It looks like an old sepia-tinted photo at first, but it's actually a high-quality modern digital image. This isn't necessarily the easiest picture to look around, but I think it deserves a feature out of pure interest and novelty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice picture, but it seems to be leaning to the right. Should be fixed. --Code (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not a lot going for this but mood ... but oh what mood! Daniel Case (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Impressive mood, but to dark on the bottom. Not excellent for me. --Milseburg (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose to dark on the bottom, no wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Horse-drawn sleighs 2012 G1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 08:53:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horse-drawn sleighs

File:Hverarönd July 2014.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 07:21:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hverarönd, Iceland, July 2014
  • Category:Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Hverarönd, also called Hverir or Námaskarð (like the adjacent pass) is an area of ongoing geothermal activity near northern Iceland's Kravla volcano. All by myself --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support this. It's a very austere landscape, and that feeling is strengthened by the overcast sky. This is not the easiest composition to move the eye around, but it's an interesting landform to document. I really consider this picture most interesting at full size, where the greatest detail is visible. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps sharpened just a bit much, but if that means it got the entire image in focus, I don't mind. Love that perspective. And the subdued light actually works quite well with the earthy colors and landscape here. Daniel Case (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Iglesia de La Compañía, Quito, Ecuador, 2015-07-22, DD 116-118 HDR.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2016 at 01:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Main altar of the Church of the Society of Jesus (La Iglesia de la Compañía de Jesús), a Jesuit church in Quito, Ecuador. The exterior doesn't give an idea of the beauty of the interior, with a large central nave, which is profusely decorated with gold leaf, gilded plaster and wood carvings, making of it the most ornate church in Quito. The temple is one of the most significant works of Spanish Baroque architecture in America and considered the most beautiful church in Ecuador.

File:Big Buck Bunny 4K.webm[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 23:44:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Did you get a popup when you clicked on the arrow in the middle? Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it wouldn't play. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You have to wait a bit. If it still doesn't work, try YouTube. Daniel Case (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I did wait. In several tries, it didn't work. Thanks for the YouTube link. Symbol support vote.svg Support
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best video on FPC in a while. Would keep a class of primary-grade students distracted for ten minutes. Daniel Case (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 01:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Miaoli-County Taiwan Quanhua-Temple-03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 18:41:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quanhua-Temple, Taiwan
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and- uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Beautiful scene and a pretty good composition, though I wish it were slightly wider (I don't like the lion[?] on the right side being cut off and the one on the left nearly cut off). But I'm not convinced by the light. The lamps look blown out and I'm not so sure about the forest, either, when I look at it in full size. Might you be able to make a few adjustments to further improve this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please crop a little at right or ad some space at left (not symmetrycal)--Jebulon (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support So much to look at that I could spend hours doing so. I'm not bothered by the blown-out lamps ... they're not really that much of the image, and when I looked at the .EXIF data my thoughts that this was a long exposure were confirmed ... at 1.3 sec, you'd hardly expect anything else of a light source. Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 01:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 09:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Juist, Memmertfeuer -- 2014 -- 3533.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 17:16:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lighthouse at the harbor, Juist, Lower Saxony, Germany
  • ✓ Fixed @George Chernilevsky: It's fixed now - a small amount only, but fixed. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 16:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the simplicity. Perhaps there is a slight tilt; if so, it has either been corrected or I don't see it. Daniel Case (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Tilt? I just fixed it some minutes ago. May be you've seen the version from the cache. Did you really see a tilt now? --XRay talk 16:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks. Done. :-) --XRay talk 17:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014.03.29.-08-Mannheim Neckarau Waldpark-Wiesen-Schaumkraut.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 15:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sieht vielversprechend aus. Um das Bild weiter zu verbessern, schlage ich vor, einen Weißabgleich vorzunehmen. Anschließend würde ich versuchen, den Weißpunkt zu verschieben. Falls Du dabei Hilfe benötigst, schick mir einfach eine Email. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I like everything about this photo except that I wonder about the light. It seems like the sunlight should be brighter, but I wasn't there. Did it really look like that? What were the weather or light conditions like? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Waiting to see what happens with Frank's offer. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version. --Hockei (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support better now, way more brillant! --Hubertl 22:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yeah, this is beautiful now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:St Patrick's Cathedral Choir 360x180, Dublin, Ireland.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 14:16:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

landscape

Please view using this viewer to appreciate.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This is Ireland's largest church/cathedral and was built in the 12th century. You may notice the Royal Standard visible in many of the flags hanging above the choir. This is an intersting historical quirk of the cathedral. It was originally built as a Catholic Cathedral, but after the English Reformation, it was converted to Anglican. Despite Ireland being a Catholic-majority country, both of it's main cathedrals (the other being Christ Church Cathedral) have since remained Church of Ireland (Anglican). -- Diliff (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great one. --Code (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very bright day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More Irish architecture. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There are a small horizontal problem just above of the arc, it look that like tilt. (see note). --The Photographer (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Maybe it is. It's hard to know for sure, but it's not really a problem when viewing the panorama IMO. Diliff (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent as usual. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support +1 --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Cologne Germany Bundle-extractor-01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2016 at 07:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cologne, Germany: Extractor machine for heat exchanger bundles
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by CEphoto, Uwe Aranas - uploaded by CEphoto, Uwe Aranas - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is another photo with a complex form that I enjoy looking at, and like the photo of the factory that we all liked, the photographer has taken a subject that most people wouldn't find beautiful, and by taking it as seriously as a conventionally beautiful motif, has captured a really interesting scene. I would also say that this photo is really only partly about the extractor machine: That and the closer man's back are the most present because they're in the foreground, but to me, what really makes this a special photo is the series of interesting shapes created by the pipes, beams and horizontal planes of different construction in the middleground and background, and the way they work formally with the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 17:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 22:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Southwark Bridge à Londres.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 18:16:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Southwark Bride as seen from Millenium Bridge
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dinkum - uploaded by Dinkum - nominated by Dinkum (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dinkum (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is not a postcard-style picture, and I enjoy it for that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The lighting and clouds are very good, but the composition and sharpness could be better. --King of ♠ 23:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The standard for London Bridges is pretty high. I'm surprised Diliff hasn't done this one. The sky and the crossing train are bonuses. But the left is cropped (with harms its EV and would only be excusable if part of the bridge was hidden from this viewpoint) and sharpness is quite weak especially off-centre. Compare File:Southwark Bridge, from Millennium Bridge, Aug 2010.jpg which is the result of stitching and is thus much much sharper. It also handles the shadow detail better, and is a wider view that captures the whole bridge. Btw, there's potential here for a great night photo -- Colin (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I find some of the bridges of London a bit boring, particularly during the day. Some of them are more impressive at night, some of them have nice detailing that isn't very apparent from a distance. Some of them just don't have nice viewpoints. I think Southwark Bridge is one of them that doesn't stand out enough for me during the day. You're right that the linked image is significantly better in sharpness and composition and it is well lit at night. Diliff (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It's not sharp enough and the view isn't interesting enough for me. Also doesn't show the termination of each end of the bride which I think is important for compositional reasons, and I don't think London's bridges are really at their most aesthetic at low tide. Diliff (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Diliff. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. -- Pofka (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2013.06.23.-11-Wesenberg-Rauchschwalbe.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 15:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • I wouldn't mind a tighter crop, but I do like the fact that I can clearly recognize the background! It looks fine at full-page size and blurred but still quite understandable at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice quality photo, but the distracting background and missing feet make it fall short of FP for me. Charles (talk) 15:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Missing feets might be an issue, but the pleasant color-play of the wooden background and the bird's blue-brown feathers is undeniable. -- Pofka (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Khaled Said Graffiti on Berlin Wall.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 14:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Khaled Said Graffiti on Berlin Wall

File:Moosburg Pfarrkirche hll Michael und Georg Epitaph Ulrich II von Ernau 26012016 0361.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 13:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Epitaph for the noble Ulrich II von Ernau in the porch of the parish church Saints Michael and George, Moosburg, Carinthia, Austria
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Given that there is already a Featured picture of the same motif in slightly different light, though without the inscriptions above and below or a part of the floor showing, please explain why this picture is different enough to justify also being featured. Because of the importance of the inscriptions or something else? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Because this image shows the complete epitaph, whereas the already featured picture only unfolds a cut-out with the central relief stone of Ulrich II. von Ernau. So you folks might get an impression of the whole work. If a specific description might be of a common interest, I can hand it in later at request. By the way, this is one of the finest Renaissance relief works in Carinthia, created by the Italian sculptor Martin Pacobello. Thus according to my opinion it is important enough to be nominated as a whole as well. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the explanation. Parts of the picture are a little fuzzy, but the quality is good enough for me. Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting light on this one. Daniel Case (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral These shadows on both sides prohibits me from supporting this. Especially right one looks just too disturbing. I like the rest of this picture, so I'll stick with neutral this time. -- Pofka (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Annapolis MD Acton Cove.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2016 at 10:42:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Annapolis, MD, Acton Cove: Yachts and St. Mary's Church
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmm, ok. What I like about the picture is the dominance of blue sky and water with the small green stripe of land inbetween - and the (complimentary) red building complex. There's basically just three dominant colors, four if you count the spotlike white clouds, yachts, and buoys. So the image is rather reduced and, due to its panoramic layout, also wide and opened up. But maybe it just doesn't work... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm not sure about this one. My first reaction was to like its restful quality, which reminds me of Johann's photos of Pörtschach, but the cutoff of the trees on the right, where they're at full height and density, is bugging me because it feels like it cuts off the movement of my eyes around the picture frame. I'm wondering what this photo would look like if you had just the amount of tree necessary to show the buildings, even while cutting off part of the graveyard. I'm not positive I'd like that better, but I might. I might or might not support this photo, anyway, but right now, I'm undecided; although I like it, I may like it as a QI rather than a FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose per Pofka. Even so, that might not have been issue but for the clipping in places—the shadow of the trees, for one, and the window trim on tbe other end. Perhaps a little overzealous in the processing? Daniel Case (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice compositionally, maybe a little bit soft in the corners. --Code (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support after rethinking three times. --Hubertl 23:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Pofka. QI, but nothing special enough to be FP. Yann (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Eristalinus June 2014-2a.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 22:50:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hoverfy on yellow flower

File:Biesenbachviadukt05 2016-01-17.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 22:06:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Biesenbachviadukt of Wutachtalbahn
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There were some clouds. The small white spots (oversharpened in the downscaled images), that is snow that was blown off nearby trees. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • So that's snow that was in the air while you took the photo? If so, that's completely reasonable. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Could be sharper, fixable? I think the spots are definitvely snow, for they are not only in the sky, but everywhere. --Llez (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info In-camera sharpening switched off. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

::*The white spots are still there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Biesenbachviadukt of Wutachtalbahn

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sharpened version of image, using image manipulation software gimp. The white spots, the snowflakes, are often outside the depth of field and also show motion blur. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator -- KlausFoehl (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm having trouble seeing the difference between the two versions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info @Ikan Kekek: Sorry, uploaded a new image version but linked the old one. Rectified. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for correcting that. The differences between the two versions are subtle, to my eyes. The bridge is pretty, but I'm not fully convinced by the composition, so I'm going to abstain on both versions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lagartija de lava de Galápagos (Microlophus albemarlensis), isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-26, DD 22.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2016 at 21:41:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Exemplar of a male Galápagos lava lizard (Microlophus albemarlensis) in Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. The Galápagos lava lizard is a species of lava lizard endemic to the Galápagos Islands. Adults range between 50 and 100 mm long (from snout to vent), exclusing the tail which could double the total length.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Exemplar of a male Galápagos lava lizard (Microlophus albemarlensis) in Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. The Galápagos lava lizard is a species of lava lizard endemic to the Galápagos Islands. Adults range between 50 and 100 mm long (from snout to vent), exclusing the tail which could double the total length. Poco2 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The head and most of the body of the lizard are high-resolution, but would you consider cropping out most of the blur in the foreground and background, as well as to the left and right of the lizard, and trying a vertically narrow rectangle that shows only the lizard and the parts of the rock that are thus included? I'm guessing, though, that everyone else will probably find the bokeh fine... -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You should consider cropping a large chunk of the foreground - but I'm perfectly happy with the background's beautiful bokeh --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I find the bokeh a bit vertiginous in this instance. What makes it beautiful to you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a matter of taste, I guess. I simply like the visual impact of this - almost military like - camouflage pattern. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for explaining. I don't really feel the resemblance, but that's OK. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Mild support, with a +1 to Martin's crop suggestion. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I agree with your suggestion, too, but I've a problem to carry it out. I'm travelling in an area of South America where the Internet connection (if any) is terrible and I didn't manage to upload a cropped version of this file. Could you do me that big favour? Poco2 01:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done please do revert it at once if you don't like it! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Salagou Lake, Liausson 15.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2016 at 19:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Salagou Lake. Liausson, Hérault, France.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created + uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by A.Savin --A.Savin 19:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A.Savin 19:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Washed-out color. Daniel Case (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because I like the composition a lot, though if you wanted more enthusiasm from me you'd need better weather. -- Thennicke (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Thennicke. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the mood of this picture makes it wow, and with usual colours of summer it would be "just a QI". --A.Savin 12:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Colors is the main thing which makes this picture special. -- Pofka (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded a version with with increased vibrance and contraste.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks you for the nomination Alex. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks a painting. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 13:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 23:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:George Washington Carver c1910 - Restoration.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 23:42:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

George Washington Carver
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by anonymous - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good job on the restoration (I read your notes on it). Very important figure in American history. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good job on the restoration! It's a very old image, so I'm OK with the weak level of over-all sharpness. I'd maybe even be OK with the focus being on the chest area around the button rather than the face. It's the background that makes this a pretty weak portrait, imho: Dark suit, dark hair and dark skin in front of a dark background. My eyes are inevitably drawn to the white shirt, as that's the only thing that really stands out. Then they go down to the suit, which is sharp and well-lit. Only after that they move up to the face, which is less sharp and mostly in the shadows. The eyes are so deep in the shadows that the white areas look like a very dark gray.
TL;DR: giving every bonus I can for 1910s technology, the dark background makes this not featureable for me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For the 1910....very good. --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per El Grafo. Great work on the restoration, but unfortunately it brought out the weaknesses of the original portrait. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Reason for the dark background is otherwise you'd have a floating head (light background + white shirt). It's a superb portrait of Uncle Peanut. KennyOMG (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not saying the photographer should have used a white background – there are plenty of shades available in-between. Now you've got a white V floating in space … --El Grafo (talk) 08:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per El Grafo. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good restoration, and undeniably high EV, but one of our best portraits? I don't think so... Yann (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Augustus Bronze X23322 NAMAthens.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 21:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Emperor Augustus
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This bronze equestrian statue of the emperor Augustus (29BC - AD 14). Found in the Aegean sea between the islands of Euboea and Agios Efstratios. The emperor is depicted in mature age, mounting a horse. He wears a tunica decorated with a meander pattern. Iconographic features of the Prima Porta gesture of official greeting. The hilt of his sword can be seen below the left hand, in which he helds the horse's reigns. On the bezel of his finger-ring a staff of divination (lituus) is engraved, symbolizing the supreme religious office of Pontifex Maximus, assumed by Augustus in 12 BC. One of the masterpieces of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good documentation, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hail Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus, Pontifex Maximus, Co(n)s(ul) XIII, Imp(erator) XXI, Trib(uniciae) pot(estatis) XXXVII, P(ater) p(atriae) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good picture and good photographer. More Jebulon and more Greece. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually that is Rome in Greece... @Martin Falbisoner: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes intulit agresti Latio. (Horatius)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no wow effect for me due to poor background and sub-optimal lightning at site. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 13:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:1-month-old kittens 32.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 19:21:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A 1-month-old kitten
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by 0x010C - uploaded by 0x010C - nominated by 0x010C -- — 0x010C ~talk~ 19:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- — 0x010C ~talk~ 19:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bojars (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, QI yes, FP not. Camera shake, not perfectly focussed. --Hubertl 21:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The camera has focused behind the eyes and the nose is completely oof. The eye on the left is in shadow. Kittens may be cute, but the photography has to be first-class and this isn't. Consider we have far far better pictures of lions and tigers and they're a wee bit harder to photograph than one's cat. -- Colin (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin and Hubertl. Daniel Case (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. DoF too small and/or wrong focus. And too much empty space at the right. --XRay talk 16:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers, nice kitten though. --Cayambe (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I also agree with the opposers, although the kitten is super-cute! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have to agree with Colin, so I give up this nomination ; thanks all for your reviews — 0x010C ~talk~ 18:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. -- Pofka (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 13:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Christian maps[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 14:05:37 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And I also think these maps are not similar enough to be a series and should be nominated (and likely featured) individually, although I understand your argument that they share a theme. But they are just too dissimilar in appearance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose featuring all of these as a set, though I'd be very likely to support them if nominated individually. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A lot of FP potential here... not sure whether a set nomination is the best choice though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fascinating! -- Thennicke (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Idem Martin above. Yann (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 18:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As a set. There are many other "Christian maps", the choice is random, maybe other are better. My advice, chose one you like, restore it carefully, and nominate it separately, you will gain a good success for sure !--Jebulon (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hello Jebulon and all. Thank you for your recommendation. I will follow it in case this set will not collect the appropriate votes. This is the first set that I nominate, so I was not sure about the exact definition of "set". My understating is that a set has to be a group of similar images. These images are not similar in terms of aesthetics. However, all of them represent the same thing. They are produced for the same purpose and in fact they are similar in terms of content: These Christian maps represent the effort of Christian theology to describe "heaven" or "hell" for its believers. So, that is why I thought to nominate them as a group. But I understand your point. I was trying to find a page about the definition of the "Set" and examples, but I could not find any. So, I thought just to nominate and see if I understood the right thing. Thanxs EVDiam (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As for me, a set should be complete in some way, and maybe chronologicaly classified, or something. But it is just an opinion, and there are no specific rules. I understand very well the purpose, but is the set "close" ? Well... difficult. Nice pictures anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Lotus flower (978659).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 10:49:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lotus flower
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Hong Zhang - uploaded by Josve05a - nominated by Josve05a -- Josve05a (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Josve05a (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 11:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Fantastic and iconic! And now you'll see a remark from me that you've never seen before: This is outstanding bokeh; in my opinion, it's exemplary, and the effect of it is to put the iconic lotus flower (and part of the stem) in a kind of mystical, symbolic landscape. Yes, the one lotus flower is very realistic and detailed, but this composition goes beyond realism to create what looks almost like a brushily painted background, which partly because of the more or less dark greens and partly due to its texture, is not assertive (as when I complain of an "aggressively blurred background" that may contain a grainy surface) but is clearly a supporting actor that fades into the distance while still having a presence that helps set a mood. I hope that makes sense, but in any case, I love this artistic creation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image does not have any colourspace tag (or profile), which is required by the Commons:Image guidelines. Assuming sRGB, I may be able to insert these tonight if I get a chance (without this metadata, colours do not display properly on some browser/monitor combinations). The guidelines also require proper categorization and the only categories this image is in are maintenance categories that say "unknown flowering plant". Which is as useful EV-wise as "unknown church". Perhaps someone can identify this. The image is nice, though the saturation/contrast is strong. It isn't hard to take a nice picture of a big flower like this (see the Commons:Featured pictures/Plants) so I think we should insist on identification for our "finest" plant photos. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have added the relevant tag/profile (assuming it was sRGB). Without some identification I oppose however. The actual JPG is heavily compressed and the background quite blocky and posterised suggesting over-processing. -- Colin (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- EVDiam (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • . Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see how this can be featured when the plant is not identified. Without this, the image has no encyclopaedic value.. Charles (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs an identification. A bit overprocessed (overcontrasted IMO)--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I will !vote support if there's an ID. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • neutral As Daniel --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Charlesjsharp, Jebulon, Daniel Case, Livioandronico2013, Colin: Identified. Josve05a (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks but my JPG quality concerns remain -- it is simply too compressed as a JPG (only 500KB) leading to blocky and posterised background. -- Colin (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - We talked about this a little on my user talk page, but since this is a blurred background in which clear realism is not envisioned, anyway, why does it matter if it's posterized, as long as it looks good and helps the flower look good? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree.--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • And before we even get into that someone needs to make sure it is licensed as CC-0 at the original website, too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
      • License review has been performed, by Revent. Josve05a (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me now --LivioAndronico (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For the record (having done the license review). The image is available rather widely across the internet. Google images and Tineye both indicate no usages that are at higher resolution, or are older, than that on Pixabay (the source for this image). I see no indication, at all, that this was not released under CC0 by the original author. Its also beautiful. Revent (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Revent, would you like to vote on whether to support or oppose the picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I wanted to take some time to 'really look at it' before voting, because from as aesthetic point of view I really like the image. There are a couple of issues tho... first, and briefly, looking at the histogram and colocube confirms my impression that parts of the image are completely burned in. The bigger problem I have is that, to be honest, Colin is correct. The bokeh effect here does not appear to be the result of the actual photography, but the result of extensive post-processing. When viewed at 'native resolution' on a large LCD, the posterization is really, really obvious, even on parts of the flower itself. This is a 8 bit jpeg, so has a 'theoretical' color depth of about 16 million colors... the actual file here has about 230k, less than 2% of that.
Also, looking at an 'error level analysis' confirms my impression.... the flower appears to have been masked out, and processed separately from the rest of the image. I think Colin is slightly mistaken on one point though... the image is saved at 94%, which is not a particularly high level of compression... it's not a small file or posterized from being overcompressed, it's just small because so much detail was removed while processing that it compresses really well... meh. I think I have to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it as a FP, even though I 'like it', because it's a better example of photoshop use than of photography. Sorry. Revent (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that in-depth analysis. However, I have one small thing to point out. The is a nomination for "Featured picture" not "Featured photograph" ;) Josve05a (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question What's the difference? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Nothing really, just that if you think it is a beautiful picture then it is beautiful and should be promoted as such. Then if it may not be the best photography you can take, that's a difference story. Post-processing might have made it look good and it's not in it's natural form, but that doesn't make it a less beautiful picture. Josve05a (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Good point. I agree with this, and what's more, so does pretty much everyone who votes here, at least in the sense that people ask for things that were actually there to be removed from the photo for aesthetic reasons. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Maybe I could have phrased myself better. I think it's a beautiful photograph, when viewed as a thumbnail, and that if the creator had managed the exact same effect 'without' reducing the image quality so much, I would not oppose it. I just think that, when viewed at full size (or, probably, when printed) the flaws created in the processing are distractingly obvious, to the point that it's not really usable unless scaled down significantly. Revent (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the explanation, but I'm not sure I understand. Does this have to do with the bokeh? Because bokeh typically is a big blur, and I find this blur pleasant, which is not usually the case. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Only in that the bokeh was not created in the 'photographic process' (i.e., not through the use of settings on the camera), but through postprocessing. That would itself be fine, if well done. However... I temporarily cropped out a small section of the background, specifically so that it would appear at full resolution (and then reverted myself)... it's in the history on the file page. If you look at it closely, it's not just 'blurred', but significantly posterized as a result of the amount of digital processing done in order to create the bokeh effect. To my eye, at least, it's really obvious when looking at the full image instead of a scaled down thumbnail. Revent (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate your response, but I would further respond that I don't care if it's posterized, because it's a deliberately blurred background, anyway. If you find the result aesthetically displeasing, then I can completely understand why you'd object to it, regardless of the process used to achieve the result. However, I'm not fully clear on whether that's the issue or whether you are objecting based on the idea that posterization is a technical fault in how the bokeh effect is achieved, rather than based on aesthetic criteria. If that's the case, it wouldn't make any sense to me because a blur is a blur, not (generally speaking) an attempt at a realistic depiction of how our eyes would actually see a scene, and the only basis that makes sense to me to use in judging bokeh is a resort to aesthetic, not technical, criteria. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I, indeed, think the image is technically flawed, and to a high enough degree that the flaws are obvious at full resolution. I think it's aesthetically pleasing (it's pretty) but we have far better images with similar content. I don't think it's 'one of the best images on Commons', at all. I think someone took a good photo and broke it so that it only works as a thumbnail. Revent (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
If there are many better images with similar content, that's certainly a valid reason to oppose featuring this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Misvormde (Atypische vorm van de) paarse schijnridderzwam (Lepista nuda; synoniemen, Clitocybe nuda, Tricholoma nudum en Agaricus nudus).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2016 at 06:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi # Lepista nuda. # Family Tricholomataceae.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Deformed (Atypical form of) purplish mushroom knight (Lepista nuda; synonyms: Clitocybe nuda, Tricholoma nudum and Agaricus nudus)created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Quite an unusual sight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good work with high educational value.--Hubertl 11:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Hubertl. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unusual. But at only 1747 × 1316 px it doesn't even fill an HD monitor screen. In 2016 I don't see any reason why this kind of photo can't be 12MP+. -- Colin (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment photo is from 2013 and is cut to get the deviation as large as possible on screen.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't see how 2013 makes any difference. The camera used was 18 megapixels. If you'd taken it closer (or used a longer focal length) then there's no reason this couldn't be frame-filling sharpness 18MP. Instead we have a fairly soft 2.3MP. I think to submit modern photos this small, there's got to be really good justification (like super long telephoto or very high ISO necessary). -- Colin (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 2 mpx is enogh for me --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know someone said that 640K ought to be enough for everybody, but... by others above. Yann (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 2 MP are enough for me but the picture has a purple color cast. --Ralf Roleček 16:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is not the fresh color of a sound mushroom. This is a sick mushroom.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 13:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Fungi

File:Tykadlo.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 23:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SEM image of butterfly feeler
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Pavel kejzlar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I approve of this picture out of pure scientific interest and encyclopedic value, but it's also interesting to look at for its own sake. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, because I agree with the others that "butterfly feeler" is not a sufficient identification. What type of butterfly? Attention should be paid to clearly valid objections, and since this is an electromicrograph, it seems particularly important for the scan to be documented in a scholarly way. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice and useful image... but the file description needs to be expanded (scanning electron migrograph, scale) and the species needs to be identified. --Cayambe (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for obvious visual reasons --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely texture. Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Potentially interesting, but little use if we don't know what it is. Charles (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until we have more information. Yann (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Yann --Hubertl 18:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Yann, until there is more information. --Cayambe (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 16:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 13:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Kallaste kalmistu.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2016 at 23:35:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kallaste Cemetery


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Mon 01 Feb → Sat 06 Feb
Tue 02 Feb → Sun 07 Feb
Wed 03 Feb → Mon 08 Feb
Thu 04 Feb → Tue 09 Feb
Fri 05 Feb → Wed 10 Feb
Sat 06 Feb → Thu 11 Feb

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

Thu 28 Jan → Sat 06 Feb
Fri 29 Jan → Sun 07 Feb
Sat 30 Jan → Mon 08 Feb
Sun 31 Jan → Tue 09 Feb
Mon 01 Feb → Wed 10 Feb
Tue 02 Feb → Thu 11 Feb
Wed 03 Feb → Fri 12 Feb
Thu 04 Feb → Sat 13 Feb
Fri 05 Feb → Sun 14 Feb
Sat 06 Feb → Mon 15 Feb

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, because need a non-bot user to do it). However after the bot has counted the votes a manual review step is used to make sure the count is correct before the bot again picks up the work.

Manual procedure[edit]

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Featured picture}} or {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the 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 user who is not a bot 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/February 2016), 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/February 2016.
  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.