Commons:Featured picture candidates
|
Featured picture candidates Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons. This page lists the candidates to become featured pictures. The picture of the day images are selected from featured pictures. Old candidates for Featured pictures are listed here. There are also chronological lists of featured pictures: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and current month. For another overview of our finest pictures, take a look at our annual picture of the year election. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Formal things[edit]Nominating[edit]Guidelines for nominators[edit]Please read the complete guidelines before nominating. This is a summary of what to look for when submitting and reviewing FP candidates:
Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents[edit]There are many different types of non-photographic media, including engravings, watercolours, paintings, etchings, and various others. Hence, it is difficult to set hard-and-fast guidelines. However, generally speaking, works can be divided into three types: Those that can be scanned, those that must be photographed, and those specifically created to illustrate a subject. Works that must be photographed include most paintings, sculptures, works too delicate or too unique to allow them to be put on a scanner, and so on. For these, the requirements for photography, below, may be mostly followed; however, it should be noted that photographs which cut off part of the original painting are generally not considered featurable. Works that may be scanned include most works created by processes that allow for mass distribution − for instance, illustrations published with novels. For these, it is generally accepted that a certain amount of extra manipulation is permissible to remove flaws inherent to one copy of the work, since the particular copy – of which hundreds, or even thousands of copies also exist – is not so important as the work itself. Works created to serve a purpose include diagrams, scientific illustrations, and demonstrations of contemporary artistic styles. For these, the main requirement is that they serve their purpose well. Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
Digital restorations must also be well documented. An unedited version of the image should be uploaded locally, when possible, and cross-linked from the file hosting page. Edit notes should be specified in detail, such as "Rotated and cropped. Dirt, scratches, and stains removed. Histogram adjusted and colors balanced." Photographs[edit]On the technical side, we have focus, exposure, composition, movement control and depth of field.
On the graphic elements we have shape, volume, colour, texture, perspective, balance, proportion, noise, etc.
You will maximise the chances of your nominations succeeding if you read the complete guidelines before nominating. Video and audio[edit]Please see Commons:Featured media candidates for video guidelines. Set nominations[edit]If a group of images are thematically connected in a direct and obvious way, they can be nominated together as a set. A set should fall under one of the following types:
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:
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:
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 Voting[edit]Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations. Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. You may use the following templates:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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]
Featuring and delisting rules[edit]A candidate will become a featured picture in compliance with following conditions:
The delisting rules are the same as those for FPs, with voting taking place over the same time period. The rule of the 5th day is applied to delisting candidates that have received no votes to delist, other than that of the proposer, by day 5. There is also a limit of two active delisting nominations per user, which is in addition to the limit of two active regular nominations. The FPCBot handles the vote counting and closing in most cases, current exceptions are candidates containing multiple versions of the image as well as FPXed and withdrawn nominations. Any experienced user may close the requests not handled by the bot. For instructions on how to close nominations, see Commons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finished. Also note that there is a manual review stage between the bot has counted the votes and before they are finally closed by the bot, this manual review can be done by any user that is familiar with the voting rules. Above all, be polite[edit]Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone else's. Choose your words with care. Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken. See also[edit]
| |||||||||||||||||||
Table of contents[edit]
Contents
- 1 Formal things
- 2 Table of contents
- 3 Featured picture candidates
- 3.1 File:20180925 UCI Road World Championships Innsbruck Women Elite ITT Tayler Wiles 850 8594.jpg
- 3.2 File:Nürnberg Schöner Brunnen und Frauenkirche 01.jpg
- 3.3 File:Etang du Pla de la Font 07.jpg
- 3.4 File:Poggersdorf Linsenberg Landschaft mit Birnbäumen 11012019 5938.jpg
- 3.5 File:United States Botanic Garden Washington April 2017 003.jpg
- 3.6 File:2017.05.13.-02-Bruehl Rohrhof--Margerite.jpg
- 3.7 File:Gottfried Christoph Härtel.jpg
- 3.8 File:Pörtschach Promenadenbad Blumeninsel Pappeln 08122018 5598.jpg
- 3.9 File:Hemidactylus frenatus (Common House Gecko) on white background, focus stacking.jpg
- 3.10 File:Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen). (d.j.b.) 25.jpg
- 3.11 File:Uyuni 4.jpg
- 3.12 File:Macropus rufogriseus with joey in pouch.jpg
- 3.13 File:Symmetric view of the staircase at The Fullerton Hotel Singapore.jpg
- 3.14 File:Vittoriano Quadriga della Vittoria Roma 2.jpg
- 3.15 File:Église Notre-Dame-de-la-Chapelle, Brussels (DSCF1087).jpg
- 3.16 File:2017.06.03.-33-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Schlanke Bernsteinschnecke-Paarung.jpg
- 3.17 File:Trees in fog on the northern side of Loch Tay, Scottish Highlands, Scotland.jpg
- 3.18 File:Carlos Valderrama 2016.jpg
- 3.19 File:Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec Interior window 2.jpg
- 3.20 Shanghai skyline November 2017
- 3.21 File:Common kingfisher in Japan, January 2019 - 谷崎7303.jpg
- 3.22 File:Flammulina velutipes, Velvet Shank, UK2.jpg
- 3.23 File:Leichtathletik Gala Linz 2018-5746.jpg
- 3.24 File:Hotel de Balene in Figeac 05.jpg
- 3.25 File:Frederic Edwin Church - Twilight in the Wilderness - 1965.233 - Cleveland Museum of Art.tiff
- 3.26 File:Flensburg 50 Pfg 1920.jpg
- 3.27 File:Theodore Monod - Adrar de Mauritanie - Oued Akerdil - Décembre 1998.jpg
- 3.28 File:Waldseemuller map 2.jpg
- 3.29 File:Heracles with the dragon - Castle square Karlsruhe.jpg
- 3.30 File:View southwest from Ben Lawers, Scottish Highlands, Scotland.jpg
- 3.31 File:Vltava river in Prague.jpg
- 3.32 File:Scheßlitz St.Kilian Orgel 1012571-HDR.jpg
- 3.33 File:Kur-Trier Mai 1919.jpg
- 3.34 File:Iglesia de Cristo, Windhoek, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 02.jpg
- 3.35 File:Río Tanana, Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-28, DD 158-170 PAN.jpg
- 3.36 File:Bergweg tussen Andiast, Ladinas en Breil-Brigels (actm) 16.jpg
- 3.37 File:Haydée, ou Le secret Act II - Philippe Chaperon.jpg, featured
- 3.38 File:Staraya Russa asv2018-07 various45 Railway station.jpg
- 3.39 File:Hippasa holmerae (Lawn wolf spider) in its funnel web.jpg
- 3.40 File:Ardea herodias standing on a rock at St. Pete Beach.JPG
- 3.41 File:RhB ABe 8-12 Langwieser Viaduct with Langwies from Rongg.jpg
- 3.42 File:Lasikahvila café in Tapiola, Espoo (December 2018).jpg
- 3.43 File:Bergtocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Wond van een afgebroken tak. Europese larix (Larix decidua) 02.jpg
- 3.44 File:Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg
- 3.45 File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) female Montagne d’Ambre (2).jpg, featured
- 4 Timetable (day 5 after nomination)
- 5 Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)
- 6 Closing a featured picture promotion request
- 7 Closing a delisting request
- 8 Archiving a withdrawn nomination
Featured picture candidates[edit]
File:20180925 UCI Road World Championships Innsbruck Women Elite ITT Tayler Wiles 850 8594.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 15:33:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Granada - uploaded by Granada - nominated by Granada -- Granada (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Abstain as author-- Granada (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Great shot!--Biser Todorov (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Nürnberg Schöner Brunnen und Frauenkirche 01.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 14:34:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Fountains
Info Schöner Brunnen and Frauenkirche in Nuremberg, Germany. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Etang du Pla de la Font 07.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 14:11:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Poggersdorf Linsenberg Landschaft mit Birnbäumen 11012019 5938.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 10:20:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Nice composition, beautiful light -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support, although I see this kind of landscape all too often where I live. – Lucas 16:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support nice. I think that a small vertical correction is needed. See the building.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but not a striking scenery for me. Big parts of the picture contain dirt. --A.Savin 20:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:United States Botanic Garden Washington April 2017 003.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2019 at 02:47:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - The composition isn't doing much for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Unappealing light, cut trees and obstructive bushes -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Ikan and Basile --Isiwal (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:2017.05.13.-02-Bruehl Rohrhof--Margerite.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 16:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asterales
Info In the middle of the blossom there is water from the rain what was fallen just before. All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Hockei (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Needs a meaningful filename first. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 23:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Gottfried Christoph Härtel.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 11:34:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller - uploaded by Rettinghaus - nominated by Rettinghaus -- Rettinghaus (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Rettinghaus (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Pörtschach Promenadenbad Blumeninsel Pappeln 08122018 5598.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 08:40:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Fine quality and appealing composition. --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Creative composition, but pity about the cut-off tree on the right side; any way to fix by cropping more or less on the right? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, I can only offer the following alternate version. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
Info created by Johann Jaritz - uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Johann Jaritz -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support much better – Lucas 16:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Hockei (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Beautiful, very good -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Fine 4 me, but I wouldn't mind the 1st version either. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Beautiful light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Hemidactylus frenatus (Common House Gecko) on white background, focus stacking.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 07:27:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info Hemidactylus frenatus (Common House Gecko) on white background, in Laos. Focus stacking from 20 pictures shot in studio. Created by User:Basile Morin - uploaded by User:Basile Morin - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - Geckos are really small, so this picture is kind of absurdly big and detailed, and it's pretty crazy that Basile was able to focus stack a living creature. I see a little motion blur only on part of the tail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Looks more like it wasn't neatly stacked. I also find the crumbs disturbing, especially the fly leg. Has the gecko just had breakfast?--Ermell (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - If it's a stacking error, I'd like to see it be taken care of. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Done Not sure I understand well the problem with the focus stacking job, as I handled it very carefully and really don't see major problem here honestly. I've uploaded a new version with the very minor issues corrected, please add a note if there's something else I've missed, but yes Ikan is right it is not easy at all to photograph a living creature so close and to make 20 shots at different focuses in these conditions. So for the tail not completely sharp I agree but I'm afraid this is not improvable. Focus stacking is a choice, otherwise f/32 would not be as sharp, nor as detailed with this DoF -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Thanks, Ikan, for the nomination. Reasonable size to look at IMO 6 Mpx -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Geckos can keep still for a long time, waiting for a prey, but still... Really amazing work! --Yann (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - That's true. I've observed them doing that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I'm fairly impressed by this focus stack of a living creature and would support it as such, but there are too many out-of-focus areas on the center of the skin and around edges to consider it FP quality. I'm positive this could all be fixed by careful, but more involved cloning work. – Lucas 16:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- This work is a composition of 20 pictures, not 30, since it was not possible to take more shots without the gecko starts moving. At this moment the reptile was breathing, which means the shape of the stomach was evolving in time, and thus a very special rhythm had to be followed for each picture. It's not as easy as with an inanimate object. If I had these parts available in focus, certainly the composition would be more accurate there, but now they're missing unfortunately, because of the manual procedure. Creating a fake object with artificial patches coming from different areas is not my taste, and would not be better on a realistic level. So I keep it with its minor technical issues. The technique is mentioned in the description, so the viewer should understand why there are soft areas. You can't invent the pixels, especially on the edges : they're just not here, when you focus on the foreground, the background is blurry, and when you focus on the background the foreground becomes half opaque, over, due to the scale ratio proportionate to the distance, and also due to the irregular texture. It's mainly an optical obstacle, certainly similar to every subject of this nature. But this resolution is large enough for excellent quality prints. If it's too big, we can downsize it at 2000 px large, 2500 px large, 3000 px large, and even 3500 px large, still acceptable in my view. But requesting extreme sharpness here like a knife blade is a bit nitpicking IMO. This coleoptera had its back leg totally out of focus because the animal moved too early, and the resulting picture was however a big success in FP -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Lucas, the various patches of blur on the tail are rather obvious and cause the image to look strange. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just imagine the gecko moved its tail a little little bit
-- Basile Morin (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Just imagine the gecko moved its tail a little little bit
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per Lucas too many out-of-focus areas. Means the stack is not well done. All in all it is not very sharp, I miss contrast and the subject is too bright. The composition isn't appealing for me because of the "white" background and this unnatural environment. --Hockei (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- It's very sharp at lower resolution, and all is sharp, from head to tail. The white background is a choice (like here or here) to present the animal in its morphology. It will be perfect for captions like this, for example. Although I find pictures of animals in their environment very valuable, one kind of photography doesn't exclude the other(s), I think. Concerning the lighting, it couldn't be better IMO, diffuse lamps illuminate every part and also avoid harsh shadows -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Expecting a focus stack of a living thing to be tack sharp in every part is strange to me. The level of detail is amazing. If you think you can do better, please do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen). (d.j.b.) 25.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 06:34:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena #The Netherlands
Info Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen). Stormy wind and heavy rain showers above Langweerderwielen.
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing interesting, depressive, no wow at all. -- Karelj (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Uyuni 4.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 06:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kallerna —kallerna™ 06:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support —kallerna™ 06:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Doesn't quite work for me with this light and those big cacti up close.--Peulle (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose as per Peulle. Yann (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Request I quite like the feeling you get by the close cacti of them being all around you and the bus in the distance is a nice touch to remind of civilisation. I'll gladly support if the filename is changed to something more informative and GPS info of the camera location is added. – Lucas 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment I changed the name and added the camera location. I am bit surprised for the votes, IMO the composition and light are much better than the existing FP from the same "island". —kallerna™ 10:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – Lucas 16:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose It lacks colors and the crop is too tight on both sides -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Macropus rufogriseus with joey in pouch.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 05:56:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
Info all by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 05:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- grendel|khan 05:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I think I prefer File:Macropus rufogriseus with joey in pouch grazing.jpg, though I don't guarantee I'd vote to feature it. This is a large photo for a wildlife photo, but it's not that sharp. The other one is sharper, and it also has more generous crops, which I think is good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – Lucas 16:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Weak oppose I can see why you wanted to take it, but it just doesn't quite come together enough for FP for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Symmetric view of the staircase at The Fullerton Hotel Singapore.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2019 at 02:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Singapore
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Nice wide view, highlights tastefully handled. There are some slight asymmetries but I think those are due to the building itself; I don't see how one could have done any better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Isiwal (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Strong support Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Vittoriano Quadriga della Vittoria Roma 2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 20:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me the CAs have not been fixed yet -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Done Fixed CAs. Thank you --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The clouds, especially that blown area, are distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment That's the part I like most, it gives drama --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Neutral For the Moment; needs some perspective correction: the lowest part along the bottom is exactly horizontal, but from tier to tier it is more and more inclined to the right --Llez (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Église Notre-Dame-de-la-Chapelle, Brussels (DSCF1087).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 20:02:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Belgium
Info by User:Trougnouf
Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Nice sky and sharp photo, also nicely labeled for VI, but I find the composition uninspiring, a largely random selection of buildings. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Question Would you prefer File:Église_Notre-Dame-de-la-Chapelle,_Brussels_(DSCF1071).jpg which is centered on the church? --Trougnouf (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - Yes. Looking at both at full screen, the other one has a composition that works for me. I like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I do not like the sky and weather/light conditions. Also the roof in the foreground is disturbing. The scenery gives no wow to me. -- -donald- (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
Support --Trougnouf (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Question - Is this sufficiently similar to be nominated as an alternative? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment I believe so, because if we were to remove the part of the frame that doesn't overlap then this one would be missing a band that's about 14% off the left, and they were taken 4-minutes apart. --Trougnouf (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - If so, I support this as an interesting cityscape. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per donald, above. Daniel Case (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:2017.06.03.-33-Anglerteiche-Rimbach--Schlanke Bernsteinschnecke-Paarung.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 19:41:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Hockei (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Too much glare from the flash, and not really that sharp. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per King. Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Trees in fog on the northern side of Loch Tay, Scottish Highlands, Scotland.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 15:58:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Fog
Info All by me. Trees in fog on the northern side of Loch Tay, Scottish Highlands, Scotland -- Podzemnik (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Abstain as author -- Podzemnik (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – Lucas 21:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Would be better with some of the top cropped out; we don't need half the photo to be grey fog. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Hockei (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Carlos Valderrama 2016.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 07:38:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created by Biser Todorov - uploaded by Biser Todorov - nominated by Biser Todorov -- Biser Todorov (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Biser Todorov (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The artificial vignetting is quite disturbing, especially around the head included on the left of the background, that really seems to be part of the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Basile; also not very sharp --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Nice but not quite giving me the wow sensation.--Peulle (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec Interior window 2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2019 at 00:11:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by -- Photographer 00:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - Fun. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Too much darkness and technical issues. These large black sides left and right don't work for me. Certainly a vertical shot would have been more adapted. With these silhouettes in the center we don't need redundant black parts to crush the view with excessive darkness. The two white vertical lines around the door are strange and make the composition complicated. Nothing is really sharp on the image and the children seem not in focus. The banner with text is not great and the lantern at the bottom make the background chaotic -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Doesn't work for me.--Peulle (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose For me either --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Basile Morin – Lucas 21:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Shanghai skyline November 2017[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 23:48:09 (UTC)
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Info The first in the series presents an expository view of the scene under natural blue hour light. The second, taken less than 30 minutes after the first, showcases Shanghai's unique nightly display of lights.
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Good details, the day version with a sky a bit noise in 100 %, and the night version a irregular soft focus on the right border, however, photopollution is common on Shanghai. Also, the day version has a blurred ships on the left and right bottom that are distracting and the header of the Oriental Pearl Tower lost details. --Photographer 23:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. I added a bit of NR on the first image. When correcting perspective for tall buildings, you inevitably end up stretching the top and shrinking the bottom, so unless you downsample the entire image the top sections will always be slightly less sharp at full resolution. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I underestand the point when you are corecting perspective (BTW, please add the panorama template to the images if its the case) and be careful when you are applying NR, its better apply a selective NR and not a general NR resulting on lost details. I find your pictures a well done work and my only critic is the ships with motion blur that could be solved taking a fast shoot combining this with a long exposure to later make the boat appear clear with another layer in photoshop --Photographer 00:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - Not everything is tack sharp, but I like both photos enough to support them individually and as a set. These also merit VIC nomination, as the skyline will doubtless be different in x-number of years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support the day version, neutral for the one at night. Impressive architecture, high resolution and nice composition on the left, but in the version at night I regret the colorful light reflection in the water was cut. Probably this choice was made to harmonize both with exactly the same framing, unfortunately the cut seems abrupt here, and visually it would certainly have been much more aesthetic with this special feature, missing -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Biser Todorov (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)- Strong
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Huh, so good! --Podzemnik (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Peulle (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Isiwal (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Given all the images we have of the Lujiazui skyline (mine included), it is mildly surprising to me that the first ones to be nominated here and be feature quality are a night-and-day pair that do not go for lurid color and are not taken from the central Bund (Where were you? Looks like you were up near the Waibaidu Bridge; I can't tell from the geotagging since as usual with anything in the PRC it is deliberately off ... it seems to have you in the Huangpu, just off the Lujiazui side, which can't be right). Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, so you actually were on the Bund. Will so subcategorize. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- The China GPS shift problem strikes again! dllu (t,c) 05:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Alright, so you actually were on the Bund. Will so subcategorize. Daniel Case (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Neat how the night shot wasn't ruined by a bunch of brightly lit boats steaming down the river. Now, if only the picture was 195 gigapixels rather than a measly 50 megapixels... dllu (t,c) 05:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Common kingfisher in Japan, January 2019 - 谷崎7303.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 22:00:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Alcedinidae
Info created by 谷崎かおる - uploaded by 谷崎かおる - nominated by 谷崎かおる -- 谷崎かおる (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Abstain -- 谷崎かおる (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support – Lucas 22:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Need Background noise reduction (i uploaded another version, however, I rollbacked it because it need your approval, and if you think that its good you could keep this version on top). BTW, remember keep the camera and lens information in the exif when you are exporting the image for review purposes --Photographer 22:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- NO problem! Your background noise reduction is very nice. Nothing lose of details. I reverted to your version, thanks! --谷崎かおる (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @The Photographer: Reprocessing from TIFF with exif. --谷崎かおる (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support though I would consider a narrower crop with not so much space at the right. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - This is a good picture, but for FP, I think it really should be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment You should cut the right part to improve the composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Basile Morin:
Done --谷崎かおる (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Basile Morin:
- You withdraw too early in my opinion -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Basile Morin: OK, I unwithdraw it. --谷崎かおる (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- :-) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Biser Todorov (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 09:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Fine details. Thank you! Tozina (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Quite perfect. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 00:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Hockei (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Flammulina velutipes, Velvet Shank, UK2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 20:24:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
Info created - uploaded by Stu's Images - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The DoF is too low for me here, meaning there is not enough sharpness or detail.--Peulle (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Too soft focus and need more DoF --Photographer 22:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Leichtathletik Gala Linz 2018-5746.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 20:13:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
Info created - uploaded by Isiwal - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I consider all four women to be the subject here, so the left one being cut off partially is a no-go for FP. – Lucas 22:08, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Photographer 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Lucas - the scene contains all four, even though the two on the sides are to the rear and a bit out of focus.--Peulle (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Lucas and Peulle. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Hotel de Balene in Figeac 05.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 18:59:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#France
Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Normal composition and forced center resulting on a unatural horizontal distortion (maybe authomatic lr horizontal) --Photographer 22:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose ... and distracting shadow on the left --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per others, and a little unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 08:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Frederic Edwin Church - Twilight in the Wilderness - 1965.233 - Cleveland Museum of Art.tiff[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 17:04:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by the Cleveland Museum of Art - uploaded by BotMultichill - nominated by EurekaLott - Eureka Lott 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)- Twilight in the Wilderness is an 1860 painting by Frederic Edwin Church. A different image of this painting was formerly a featured image at en.wikipedia, but was delisted in 2006 due to the number of compression artifacts. It was Wikipedia's picture of the day on August 21, 2004 and on July 29, 2005. We now have this higher-quality version, courtesy of the Cleveland Museum of Art. - Eureka Lott 17:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment It's lovely and all, but I don't feel like voting for it as it's a big TIFF file, meaning the file size is bigger than it needs to be and thus less useful. Have you considered making a PNG version?--Peulle (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- I believe File:Frederic Edwin Church - Twilight in the Wilderness.jpg was downloaded from the Cleveland Museum of Art's site, and there are other (lower-resolution) files in Category:Twilight in the Wilderness. - Eureka Lott 17:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment I would support a JPEG version. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I absolutely agree to upload this type of work (photos of paintings) in TIFF format with the aim of preserving the original colors, however, mediocre photography of a masterful painting, this painting deserves a better reproduction. --Photographer 22:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose This painting looks like a bad photograph to me, very dark and details lost in the shadow. Maybe the original is better, but at least this view is not successful. In addition, TIFF format is too heavy -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, .TIFF format problems (I can't get it to open in Large Image Viewer, nor can I view it at full size without downloading it). Daniel Case (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Flensburg 50 Pfg 1920.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 16:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Tozina (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Isiwal (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Do you think that the template is filled properly? I think File:50 Armenian dram - 1998 (reverse).png or File:100 Palestine Mils 1948 Obverse.png make more sense when parameter "date" is saved for the issue date and "author" for a real author, not for the author of the digitized version. What do you think? --Podzemnik (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Yes, I've changed it accordingly. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Thank you! --Podzemnik (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Usually I do it like this, but here I wasn't careful enough. --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Theodore Monod - Adrar de Mauritanie - Oued Akerdil - Décembre 1998.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 14:16:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created and uploaded by Bruno Lecoquierre - nominated by Groupir ! -- Groupir ! (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Groupir ! (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Too small for me, and full of dust spots.--Peulle (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Peulle – Lucas 22:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Peulle. Not QI quality, though perhaps it could be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- It could be a QI, considering we would be judging it from 1998 standards (on the moment of creation). What do you think?--Peulle (talk) 10:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe if the dust spots are cleaned. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose No wow. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Waldseemuller map 2.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2019 at 11:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
Info created by Martin Waldseemüller / Library of Congres, uploaded by Jackaranga, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Martin Waldseemüller's map from 1507 is the first map to include the name "America" and the first to depict the Americas as separate from Asia. There is only one surviving copy of the map, which was purchased by the Library of Congress in 2001 for $10 million. -- Yann (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Peulle (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - Magnificent, beautiful document and photo, truly a great FP in addition to being an obvious one for historical reasons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Tozina (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Amazing document -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Heracles with the dragon - Castle square Karlsruhe.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2019 at 21:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment In my opinion, nothing should be visible in the dark parts of the picture or is this the intention? --Ermell (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Real surrealist art. ;o) --Yann (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Isiwal (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
File:View southwest from Ben Lawers, Scottish Highlands, Scotland.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2019 at 19:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#United_Kingdoom
Info All by me. It's a view from Ben Lawers, Scotland, in the early morning when the sun is up but the moon is still well visible. I tried to remove the unsharp area in the right corner but ended up leaving it. I simply like how it balances out the triangle shadows of the corner. -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Abstain as author. -- Podzemnik (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Impressing landscape.--Ermell (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - Glorious. It doesn't matter that there's a corner that's unsharp at that resolution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support and now a dram of Oban 16 --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Tozina (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Vltava river in Prague.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2019 at 14:59:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
Info. Amazing Vltava river in Prague. All by Dmitry A. Mottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment There is a streak going down the center left of the sky, and the left third of the sky is noticeably darker than the rest of the sky. It doesn't look like a crepuscular ray, graduated ND filter, or bad polarization, so I'm really curious what it is. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Crepuscular rays :-) Photo is a strict contre-jour. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Neutral I think the lighting works despite having been taken midday because of the great clouds and backlit autumn trees. However, while the trees in the center produce an excellent effect, the trees in the lower corners compete for attention, which doesn't help the composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - The thumbnail looked blown out to me, but the picture is beautiful, with uncommon light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Neutral The composition is beautiful, but the backlit situation is imho unfavorable for this scene - especially for the bridges and buildings in the farer background. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per my !vote in the previous nomination, and with King's critique added. Daniel Case (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 16:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Scheßlitz St.Kilian Orgel 1012571-HDR.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2019 at 13:30:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Organ loft of the catholic parish church St.Kilian in Scheßlitz. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Ermell (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support. Great processing. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Podzemnik (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I like a lot of things about this photo, but I'm a bit frustrated by the discrepancy between the left and right margins. Why couldn't you get the photo truly symmetrical? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment The optical axis does not coincide exactly in the geometric centre of the building. Symmetry can therefore not be created later on the computer. As a guideline for the balance I have chosen the stairs on both sides. Personally, I find 100% symmetry not desirable either.--Ermell (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I certainly don't always demand symmetry, but I didn't like the bit of a column on the right vs. more of the column on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment A few technical remarks: 1) The windows are not bright enough, resulting in an flat "HDR" look. Let the whites blow out because there's no detail to be found anyways. 2) Please crop off the white bit in the lower left corner. 3) The perspective has not been fully corrected; it's still sloping in. 4) There's some asymmetry, per Ikan. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I like this better, but could you add back the outside of both flights of stairs? I think this tight a crop is not quite optimal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 14:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry that I have to oppose here. Technically very well done image, but for me the scenery is not ready for FP, as it is now. This church needs some fresh paint. --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Kur-Trier Mai 1919.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 22:47:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
Info created by Verein Trierisch (ed.), reproduced, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05 -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Question Are those dark spots on the left side on the original? Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Yes, they are. I decided to leave it the way it is, didn't clone out anything. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support, then. Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I really like this one, especially because of the top text, which says that the publication has been approved by the French military command. It was 1919 and a harmless little thing like this still had to be approved by the French. Says something about why the Germans became so resentful in the following years.--Peulle (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support- American military
... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- American military
- Ah yes, thanks for pointing that out; I was actually thinking about the one from September. That's the one I'd nominate, for the reason stated above.--Peulle (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - That's a beautiful illustration. I feel like this cover could benefit from a little digital restoration, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Well, it would be quite easy to "clean it up", but on the other hand, it is obvious that this particular copy has had its own history. That's why I like it with its "patina" which IMO underlines the above-mentioned historical context. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Question - Is this issue now rare that only a couple of copies still exist? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Info - Obviously quite rare, at least it is the only one I know. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support provisionally, on the basis that you tried searching catalogs of rare book dealers and libraries. I tried doing a quick search on Addall and don't think I found a copy for sale there. Worldcat didn't seem to find anything, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- If rarity is the criterion, there aren't that many of these on Commons, which is where we should focus our search, no? It can always be delisted later if more are uploaded. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's a valid point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support In my opinion it's an excellent reproduction of a rare document. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Tozina (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Iglesia de Cristo, Windhoek, Namibia, 2018-08-04, DD 02.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 19:28:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Info Christ church or Christuskirche, Windhoek, Namibia. The church, built beween 1907-1910 and designed by architect Gottlieb Redecker, was originally known as the Church of Peace as it was built following the wars between the Germans and the Khoikhoi, Herero, and Owambo. It was constructed from quartz sandstone mined from the vicinity and has a mixture of neo-Romanesque, Art Nouveau and Gothic revival influences. After the feedback I got in the just closed and failed FP nom of this subject, looks like this one could have a higher chance to pass the bar. All by me, Poco2 19:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Poco2 19:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Question The file name and spanish description use “Winhoek” without a “d”, but the spanish Wikipedia article has the “d”. Which is right and for which languages? Also, IMHO, FPs showing real places should include location information (GPS coordinates). – Lucas 21:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
- Lucasbosch:
fixed, thanks! I oversaw that typo in the filename, I also added the geodata, --Poco2 09:57, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Lucasbosch:
Support Not perfect, but this works for me. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support here we go --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Neutral Beautiful building with great colors. Composition-wise, however, I feel that a 1.55x aspect ratio is too wide for such a square building; it feels like it doesn't have enough room to breathe on the top and bottom relative to the sides. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Question Nice light. But I am not fully convinced by the crop / composition: Is it possible to uncut the black-white strip at the right foreground and choose a less central composition? --Tuxyso (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Tuxyso: Unfortunately I cannot expand the crop at the bottom and regarding the proposal to crop left or right, I am right now not sure about it. I've a bunch of opinions in this and in the former FPC and before I start offering several alternative I'd like to see how this FPC turns out --Poco2 21:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - I've gone back and forth with this picture a few times. I wish it were possible to show the black and white curb all the way to the edge of the picture, but the church is beautiful and photographed in what I consider good light, and except for that detail, the composition is working for me. I think this is good enough to be worth featuring. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support I propose to crop a bit at the left side -- Llez (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The composition does not work for me, sorry. For me, the other one was better. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Río Tanana, Tok, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-28, DD 158-170 PAN.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 19:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info Panoramic view of a landscape at the banks of the Tanana River near Tok, Alaska, United States. All by me, Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Highlights too bright on the clouds and a yellowish cast that gets more noticeable at the edges, where it's also very unsharp. Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Daniel: I've "cooled" the image a bit, reduced the higlights and cropped a bit on the left. Please, consider that this image spans over aprox. 200 degrees and therefore it's to expect that the dynamic range is pretty big with strong shadows and highlights. The same applies to the "sharpness". When taking an image like this you focus manually to a spot (in this case the other side of the river) so that the focus does not change from frame to frame (in that case you'd have problems to stitch the panorama or diferences from frame to frame would be visible). The tradeoff is that items that are either further or closer from the focus point would not get the same sharpness. Btw, the image is made of 13 frames and has 135 MPx --Poco2 10:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Totaly cool. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Composition does not work for me. Besides: The bridge at the very right of the image looks strangely curved - possibly due the the panoramic projection choosen here. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- I'm a fan of panoramics. :) MartinD (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Bergweg tussen Andiast, Ladinas en Breil-Brigels (actm) 16.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 16:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural #Switserland.
Info A small artificial lake, beautifully situated in the Graubünder alps.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Weak oppose A QI for sure, but as an FP it doesn't work ... we have the hazed mountains in the background, and this oddly-cropped half of a waterbody in front. Daniel Case (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Daniel. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- even better Seven Pandas (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The composition is too static, with no foreground interest to lead the viewer into the center of the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Haydée, ou Le secret Act II - Philippe Chaperon.jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 16:03:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
Info created by Philippe Chaperon - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Peulle (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - Cool. Have you ever seen or heard any music from this opera? I have not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Auber's one of those important-but-not-much-performed-anymore fellows. But the overture's on Youtube, and it does sound very good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Question Please, could you describe the restoration procedure? because i can just see a cut --Photographer 23:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Mainly dust and scratch removal, though there was also repairing some bits where some paint had obviously flaked off, and fingerprint removal.Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Staraya Russa asv2018-07 various45 Railway station.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 07:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Russia
Info Interior of the railway station (built in 1956) in Staraya Russa, Novgorod Oblast ----- All by A.Savin --A.Savin 07:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --A.Savin 07:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support And in less than ideal light, yet! Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The image feelt somewhat crooked to me and looking at the floor tiles confirmed it: the camera seems to not have been in the centerline and therefore a perspective error remains. I see this shift visually for the whole image, not just the floor tiles. – Lucas 21:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Neutral Good picture, but the floor seems to be bent and following the tiles, is is somewhat tilted, in addition the groundline of the pillars is not horizontal --Llez (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Tozina (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Isiwal (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Hippasa holmerae (Lawn wolf spider) in its funnel web.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2019 at 01:01:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida#Family_:_Lycosidae_(Wolf_Spiders)
Info created - uploaded - nominated by Basile Morin -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support while I would also like a closed crop. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - Good picture. Unsharp foreground is regrettable but unavoidable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Isiwal (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Yes I think a closer crop and I'd rotate to get the eyes level, but that's a matter of choice. --Charles (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Done below. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Alternative[edit]
Info Rotated and cropped version from the previous comments, Yann, Ikan, Isiwal, Charles, thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Technical quality not great, but I like the composition. It's not easy to find the spiders in this position. Charles (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support I prefer this version --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support even better! I would not have rotated it, but that's a minor concern. Spiders walk upside-down all the time. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support I wish you could get in even tighter, but I think this is as far as you can go in that direction without making technical compromises. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - Probably better overall than the other version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Both versions are good, according to me. --Harlock81 (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Ardea herodias standing on a rock at St. Pete Beach.JPG[edit]
Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2019 at 21:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes
Info created by Grendelkhan - uploaded by Grendelkhan - nominated by Grendelkhan -- grendel|khan 21:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- grendel|khan 21:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing to say against showing an animal in its natural environment, but in this case the subject is not well separated from the background without any need for it (IMHO), making it harder to see the quite interesting silouette of the bird. The worst part are feathers on the bottom of its beak that are of very similar tone as the water reflections behind it. E.g. a lower angle would have cleared the background up a lot and provided more presence. – LucasT 21:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Quite good IMHO. Yann (talk) 07:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per Yann. The fact that the background is somewhat blurred gives sufficient separation, and the bird is quite well captured. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Cannot compete with the many Ardea FPs. Charles (talk) 11:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per others - Ryan Hodnett (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per Lucas - for an FP the detail quality of feathers and beak is imho not sufficient. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 18:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per Lucas --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per Lucas -- Karelj (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:RhB ABe 8-12 Langwieser Viaduct with Langwies from Rongg.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 17:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger, nominated by Yann (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Yann (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Lovely scene, but the big shadow in the corner distracts from it too much. Also the shadow together with a more near tree top (not well identifiable without zooming in, too) cover up half of the village. Overall, the image doesn't tell a clear story to me as it contains too many competing elements of similar size in the frame. The composition could be improved as well. – LucasT 19:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - The sweeping shape works well enough to me as a composition, and the shadow is minor to me, in the scheme of things. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Works better, and thus the shadow is less distracting, if you see it as a winter landscape rather than a picture of the bridge (Nice that you waited for the train to be going over it). Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Daniel nailed it --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 06:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Tozina (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Hockei (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Lasikahvila café in Tapiola, Espoo (December 2018).jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2019 at 17:16:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Finland
Info Lasikahvila café in Tapiola, Espoo. A photograph by me. --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Nitpicky, I know, but the lowest row of tiles show that the camera was either not aligned with the tiles well enough or it was tilted marginally. If this is fixed I'd be happy to reconsider. – LucasT 19:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The composition does not convince me, and it looks somewhat distorted (see previous comment) --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose agree Uoaei1 Seven Pandas (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment @Seven Pandas, Uoaei1, Lucasbosch: Did a small perspective correction, what do you think, is it better? --Msaynevirta (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Support - Pretty restful composition to me, and I don't mainly mean because it's late at night and there are no people. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The composition is fine with me, but the contrast is just too high. As a result the eyes are drawn only to the logo at the top and the horizontal line in the middle, detracting attention from the more interesting interior. I think it would work better if taken earlier in the night. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Dark, nothing special in my view, and the upper left corner with banners in the shadow is particularly ugly -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Per others opponents. -- Karelj (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Bergtocht van Peio Paese naar Lago Covel in het Nationaal park Stelvio (Italië). Wond van een afgebroken tak. Europese larix (Larix decidua) 02.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 16:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects Wounded tree (Larix decidua).
Info This is a picture of a large open bleeding wound of a European larch. The tree produces resin to protect the open wound from external influences. Stelvio National Park (Italy). Wound from a broken branch. European larch (Larix decidua).
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Almost looks like a mouth ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose crop is too tight in my opinion and there's not too much of wow factor in the subject, as these kinds of wounds in trees aren't too unusual. Sorry. --Msaynevirta (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment I respect your opinion about this picture. But I would like to give a little explanation. The European larix (Larix decidua) occurs in Central Europe especially in the Alps. We are nature lovers and love the Alps. We have been going on holiday for years. Rarely have we seen a larix (Larix decidua) with such a large bleeding wound against the trunk as the larix in this photo. The branch has been broken down to the outside of the core in the tree trunk. An ordinary photo that you can shoot regularly is not my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment We have similar Pinaceae family trees here in Finland, and I've seen similar wounds in them. The subject may be interesting, but the problem is more in the current presentation (crop and composition). --Msaynevirta (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree on the tight crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --Llez (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose not FP subject for me --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Edith Kermit Carow Roosevelt by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg[edit]
Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2019 at 11:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Frances Benjamin Johnston - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Info I really like how Johnston used sepia to bring out the lace. I have tweaked the levels a bit to try and bring out the detail, but the effect is 100% in the original. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Everything is good: the pose, the costume, the original photograph, the copy, and the restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Peulle (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Question You're sure the darks aren't too darkened? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
- I tried a few things, and this looked best to me. Anything much lighter looked faded out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Support per Yann. --Aristeas (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Well done, please add info about the restoration procedure in the image description. --Photographer 01:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- I did, though it was pretty standard. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Support--Tozina (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) female Montagne d’Ambre (2).jpg, featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2019 at 14:52:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles
Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support A pity for the overexposure of the branch, but I guess you can't do much about it. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Our finest reptile photography includes habitat. What is the point in photographing one in the mountains of Madagascar, when the result looks like a pet in somoene's bedroom? The hard direct flash does it no favours either, resulting in over exposure and loss of three-dimensionality. -- Colin (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment Still bearing a grudge from the 'flash can kill a chameleon' discussion. Sad. And of course it's not direct flash. Try looking at the shadow from the tail wrapped around the branch. Of course it's an artifical setting, but that doesn't stop it aspiring to be included in our finest reptile photography. --Charles (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Why should I bear a grudge? I seem to recall you got upset with The Photographer. Charles, this does you no favours. I commented on the photo, and I examined our collection of reptile FPs. I said the flash was direct, I didn't claim it was a ring flash. Any flash mounted a few inches from the centre of the camera produces that effect. Please Charles, go look at the link you added to our current FP reptiles. Ambient light, or merely using a little fill-flash would have included some habitat colours, but you went for tiny aperture, low ISO, fast shutter and a whopping big flash at a distance of 1.6m to compensate for your choice of settings. So the wood is blown and the background is lost. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't recall you being with me when I took the picture and your analysis of my camera settings shows a very limited understanding of night-time wildlife photography. I chose to have a blackground. Charles (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Charles, first you transfer your grudge on to me (who has nothing to have a grudge about), then insult me. Your camera settings may well be for a chosen black background, if you say so, but they also required an unnecessarily bright flash to compensate, hence the over-exposed branch. That's basic photography, nature, night-time, or otherwise. My opinion stands, and since you once again seem to be more interested in personal attacks, than photography, I'm unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment I propose to lay down the weapons. There are more important things in life than a picture!--Famberhorst (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Charles, first you transfer your grudge on to me (who has nothing to have a grudge about), then insult me. Your camera settings may well be for a chosen black background, if you say so, but they also required an unnecessarily bright flash to compensate, hence the over-exposed branch. That's basic photography, nature, night-time, or otherwise. My opinion stands, and since you once again seem to be more interested in personal attacks, than photography, I'm unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I would support this for the style which is similar to my still life photos, but the lack of sharpness and therefore definition of its features, especially on the head, and the out of focus areas, are too much. All this is visible even without zooming in to 100 %. – LucasT 18:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Support I don't mind the overexposure on the branch as that is not the subject. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Per Daniel Case --Llez (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 13:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per Colin --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]
Fri 18 Jan → Wed 23 Jan Sat 19 Jan → Thu 24 Jan Sun 20 Jan → Fri 25 Jan Mon 21 Jan → Sat 26 Jan Tue 22 Jan → Sun 27 Jan Wed 23 Jan → Mon 28 Jan
Timetable (day 9 after nomination, last day of voting)[edit]
Mon 14 Jan → Wed 23 Jan Tue 15 Jan → Thu 24 Jan Wed 16 Jan → Fri 25 Jan Thu 17 Jan → Sat 26 Jan Fri 18 Jan → Sun 27 Jan Sat 19 Jan → Mon 28 Jan Sun 20 Jan → Tue 29 Jan Mon 21 Jan → Wed 30 Jan Tue 22 Jan → Thu 31 Jan Wed 23 Jan → Fri 01 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). 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.
- 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)(for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}} - 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 === - Save your edit.
- If it is featured:
- Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
- Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
- Add the template {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
- If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
- If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
- Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
- You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
- Add == FP promotion ==
{{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator. - Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a human user to complete it.
- 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/January 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.
Closing a delisting request[edit]
- 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) - 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 === - 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/January 2019.
- If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
- Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
- 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 ....
- 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.
- If this is a Delist and Replace, the delisting and promotion must both be done manually. To do the promotion, follow the steps in the above section. Note that the assessment tag on the file page and the promotion tag on the nominator's talk page won't pick up the /replace subpage that these nominations use.
Archiving a withdrawn nomination[edit]
- In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
In the purpose that the FPCbot will not mark withdrawn nominations with a "to be reviewed" template and put them in Category:Featured picture candidates awaiting closure review just like if they were on the usual list, put the following "no" template:
{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=X|oppose=X|neutral=X|featured=no|category=|sig=--~~~~}} - Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
not featured
For example:
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
becomes
=== [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], not featured === - Save your edit.
- Open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination. It will be of the form:
{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2019), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.