Commons:Featured picture candidates

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

Featured picture candidates


FPCandiateicon.svg

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

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

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

Formal things[edit]

Nominating[edit]

Guidelines for nominators[edit]

Please read the complete guidelines before nominating.

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

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


Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photographs

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

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

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

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

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

Video and audio

Set nominations

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

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

Adding a new nomination[edit]

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

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

All single files:

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

Voting[edit]

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

You may use following templates:

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

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

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

Unhelpful reasons for opposing include:

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

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

Featured picture delisting candidates[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Featured picture candidate policy[edit]

General rules[edit]

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

Featuring and delisting rules[edit]

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

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

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

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

Above all, be polite[edit]

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

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

See also[edit]

Table of contents[edit]

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

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

Contents

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

Featured picture candidates[edit]

File:Wadi Al Hitan1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2016 at 07:49:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Featured picture on Arabic Wikipedia.created by Clr202 - uploaded by Ori~ - nominated by ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 -- ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Sant'Andrea (Mantua) - Dome.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 17:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sant'Andrea (Mantua) - Dome.jpg
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by LivioAndronico (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like the photo. I haven't been there, so I'll trust you on the colors. A Google Image search results in images that are much grayer, but that just seems to me to be an overall difference in how they took the photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Should be perfectly centered, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was sure you'd say that Jebulon, unfortunately (as you can see here [1]) I can not take a picture with a perfect center because there is a fence, thanks--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Of course, I'm sure there is a good reason for that non-centered image. But not every place is worth a picture, and not every place is worth a Featured Picture.--Jebulon (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I understand about these fences. Daniel Case (talk) 07:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. Jebulon's right, theoretically, but this picture is too good not to support. It works despite being not perfectly centered. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Papilio machaon Mitterbach 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 16:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old World swallowtail (Papilio machaon)

File:Crested lark singing.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 17:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Liège-Guillemins Station, Calatrava.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 17:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Bert Kaufmann - uploaded & nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the picture was nominated before and deleted per legal issues, but now file was restored per legal considerations changing. -- Tomer T (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mesmerizing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing! --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WoW --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very OOOooooh!! I actually had to triple check that it had the right license since it is one of the more restrictive licenses (CC BY 2.0) but that seems to work. Someone check again just to be sure, please. Also, looking at the place on Google Maps, I can't tell if this place really looks like this or if the pic has been created by mirroring one element twice (which I suspect since all shadows are identical) in which case this should be mentioned in the file description. w.carter-Talk 17:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOOOOOOHOWWWWW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as it is against the rule: "Digital manipulations .... Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable." --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - What's the manipulation? The blue color or something else? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The manipulation is that this exact place does not exist. One half of it is how the building looks, the other half is just a mirror image of the place. Like in a kaleidoscope. As an example, I took this image and used the same technique to create this more stunning image. w.carter-Talk 23:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Well, I think it's a great picture, but the description should indicate what manipulation was done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I mentioned it in the file. It can be verified by the tags in Flickr. Tomer T (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support seems fine --Mile (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Winifred Carter.--Jebulon (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well frère J, I haven't opposed it! ;) Don't get me wrong, I'm just as wowed by this image as anyone else, I only want to get all the technicalities and Formal things right before I vote for it. You know all the boring things that have to be right before we can call a pic Featured. One of these is what category this should be in. We promote images of fantasy places in paintings all the time, but should this really be in the /Places/Interiors category? Not everyone are as savvy as we when it comes to image manipulations and someone may see this and want to go and have a look at this amazing place only to find that it does not actually exist. And it can hardly in the /Non-photographic media/Computer-generated or...? w.carter-Talk 09:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An interesting and highly artistic approach to a place that deserves more photographic interest now that fop finally seems to be established in Belgium. I've been to that station many times but didn't have time to take pictures yet. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:24, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Lille Eté2016- La Treille le Retable de N.D.-du-Rosaire.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 16:49:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Prédelle et retable de N.D.-du-Rosaire Cathédrale de Notre Dame de la Treille, Lille.- Nord (France)

File:Reynisfjara and Reynisdrangar, Iceland.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2016 at 06:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Reynisfjara and Reynisdrangar as seen from Dyrhólaey, Iceland
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - For what it's worth, the word I'd use is "subtle". This isn't an immediate "WOW!" Instead, I found that in looking at it longer, I really enjoyed the subtle gradations of texture and color and the forms. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ikan. Does for cool colors what Poco's Andean landscapes do for earth tones. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Cabeças de águia do Parque Estadual do Guartelá.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 22:43:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Formations in sandstone that resemble heads of eagles in the Guartelá State Park

File:Betty Friedan 1960.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 16:58:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Betty Friedan
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Fred Palumbo - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good job with another photo of a historically important woman, at the time when she most gained her fame. I wish it didn't have the flash shadow, but there's only so much you can do, and frankly that just came with toning down the blown background. I also love the very contemporary expression on her face, like she wouldn't a mind a cigarette, a drink or preferably both after the photographer's done. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Daniel said it best. It's great that you've been doing such a service by restoring and nominating pictures of historically important women. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek: Expect that trend to continue for some time. At the moment, I have twelve photos of important women in the queue to nominate once a space opens up. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --w.carter-Talk 22:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for historical reasons --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't see why this would be among "our fines images". The hard shadow on the wall behind her, the cut hand … To me it looks like something in-between a planned shooting and a casual snapshot, it lacks something special. In other words: No "WOW" for me. --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Without knowing her, the photo gives no indication of her activities and is ordinary in all other aspects. IMO not outstanding enough to be featurable. --DXR (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The description gives a link to the Wikipedia article about her and describes her as an "American feminist and writer". If you don't know who she was, I suggest you read the linked Wikipedia article to start with. She was a very important feminist writer and was highly visible in the media in the U.S., to the point that her name would be one of the first that someone, or at least someone around my age (51) or older would mention if asked to name feminist leaders. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I looked her up and of course, she is notable. But frankly the argument, look her up to see her notability defeats the point of a Commons FP. This is a bland photo of a woman, who happens to be important. That may be a very good justification for an enwiki feature. Equivalently, I would not support a feature of a boring picture of some house somewhere, in which something important happened. I expect something more from the picture itself, something which is there here, for example. --DXR (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe some value although I did not know her (not a criteria of course, even for a 56 years old fellow here), but the quality of the picture is not excellent IMO (harsh shadow for instance).--Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Nikola Tesla, with his equipment EDIT.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 16:23:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is the restored version of File:Nikola Tesla, with his equipment Wellcome M0014782.jpg

This is the restored version of File:Nikola Tesla, with his equipment Wellcome M0014782.jpg

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lošmi (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks like a still from Frankenstein. Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg STRONG SUPPORT reminds me The Big Bang Theory [2] and [3]. One of the geniuses who ever lived and little appreciated (not Edison). Hovewer a Big WOW --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support, but did you do anything to the picture other than removing the text (which I'd rather were still in the photo, as it's nice to see his handwriting and its placement doesn't come close to seriously damaging the photo) and decreasing the whitening of the surrounding area? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nothing except the area with text. If you like, add an alternative nomination with the original image. --Lošmi (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
      • No-one has yet addressed the question of whether someone can offer an alternative while they have two active nominations of other pictures, so I don't know whether I am allowed to offer an alternative or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for historical reasons, Tesla was a cool guy. w.carter-Talk 07:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Elon Musks favourite. --Mile (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:GSI Mariner beached on banks of the Mackenzie River, Inuvik, NT.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 15:43:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

GIS Mariner beached on the shores of the Mackenzie River near inuvik in the Canadian Arctic
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water transport#Ships
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have been inspired by some of the recent successful nominations of shipwrecks to nominate this one. More a beached ship than a wrecked one, though. -- Daniel Case (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hehe! :) Now this is right up my alley, so pardon me for being a bit picky Daniel. It needs a bit of perspective adjustment. The walls of the crew cabins right below the pilothouse as well as those of the aft cabin under the railing, should be just as straight as those of a house. Right now they are leaning a bit into center. The antennae are probably tilted IRL due to wind activity. Swab up the deck pic, ye landlubber! w.carter-Talk 17:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done At least to the extent that I could without cutting off the top of the mast. I hope that's enough of a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. Lucky it was red boat since it makes a good contrast + complementary color with the foliage. w.carter-Talk 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I fail to see anything outstanding in this photograph. The bush on the left foreground spoils the composition entirely. --Kreuzschnabel 20:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me is outstanding ,funny and very curios --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very cool picture. I like the bush on the left, which I find good for the composition. A bit of the foreground is somewhat unsharp, but in the entire context, complaining about that feels like nitpicking to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting composition. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. A different take on the usual fare of shipwrecks. —Bruce1eetalk 05:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Locatie, Lendevallei. Petgat 04.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 13:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lendevallei in Netherlands. Petgat.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - It's no secret that I love Dominicus' sensibility, and I think this photo with its wonderful reflections and gradations of light, reminiscent of Netherlandish landscape painting of yesteryear, is a great work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • question: ArionEstar are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

*Symbol support vote.svg Support See comment below. Mmmm... When is the next flight to this place leaving? :) w.carter-Talk 14:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Qualified support Lovely composition; clouds at upper right are a little overxposed ... this may be fixable. Daniel Case (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • question: Daniel Case are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. Small correction. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It actually might be too dark now; I'd split the difference. However, I would understand that your priority would be to address the concerns about the colors below. I don't see the problem - the colors look real to me. But that's beside the point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems far too yellow for an image taken in the middle of the day. Are the colors ok? Kruusamägi (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • question: Kruusamägi are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Yes, that is better. Not enough wow for me to support the nomination but I see no reason to oppose. That's a fine image. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment for me too --LivioAndronico (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • question: LivioAndronico are you OK with the new version of this photo?--Famberhorst (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done. Slightly less yellow. Could possibly turn back to the first version.

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm perfectly happy with this version, and I actually consider it the best of the three, providing that the colors are now accurate. You really should ping everyone, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There's a "ping" template, but I would just put their usernames here, like so: Arion, W.carter, Daniel Case, Martin Falbisoner, Kruusamägi and LivioAndronico, are you OK with the new version of this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The new version is fine with me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Totally ok with me. And to add: 'Ping' is a Wiki-slang/jargong for the notice you get when another user mentions you on a page, other than your own, to get your attention like Ikan just did here. This is necessary when you alter an image during review so those who have already voted can say if they approve the new version as well. (There is a discussion about this on the talk page.) w.carter-Talk 07:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very average image of nothing. Could be any puddle with any grass, in a very normal day... nothing wow, special... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahem... it doesn't hurt to be polite even when you oppose to something. w.carter-Talk 16:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I see nothing impolite in the statement. And I feel quite the same (it’s a nice picture, a bit soft and noisy, some grass blades pixelated on the right side, I suspect oversharpening – all in all I don’t see an outstanding piece of photographic art here) but that has become quite normal. On FPC, we used to consider, "is this really one of the very best images on Commons?", now it seems to be rather "well, it’s not too bad, so I’ll support it" for many voters. Well, if this is the direction things develop here, I know I am free to leave. It’s just the FP star rapidly losing its meaning for me. --Kreuzschnabel 19:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Different people respond differently to different photos. For example, there is a core constituency for macro photos with bokeh. I like some of them but have a lot less tolerance for unsharpness and especially vertiginous backgrounds than others. That doesn't make pictures I oppose "nothing" or cause the star to lose its meaning because others like photos I oppose. And some viewers don't respond to this kind of landscape photo the way I do. It sucks when, as has often happened, the photographer takes offense at opposition per se and posts petulant remarks, but I do think we should all, while expressing our opinions, try to be polite, and I realize there are cultural differences, as New Yorkers tend to be blunter than people from many other parts of the U.S. and my experience so far has been that Germans are much blunter than New Yorkers (not to mention French people, for whom etiquette tends to be quite important). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sure Famberhorst (ping Face-smile.svg) --LivioAndronico (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 100% with Kreuzschnabel, even if Rodrigo maybe forgot that there is a person who took the picture...--Jebulon (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
    • And I think this nomination has supported to many transformations since the beginning of the evaluation process, per the debate mentionned above.--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jebulon. --Karelj (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThis is not any of the original two versions I voted for. It has lost some of its fairy tale glow and become a more ordinary photo for me. Even if I liked this version I would withdraw my support just because of all the significant changes being done with the photo during the voting process. It is simply too confusing. w.carter-Talk 21:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Laguna Honda, Bolivia, 2016-02-03, DD 34.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2016 at 12:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laguna Honda (in English "Deep Lagoon") is a salt lake located at 4,114 metres (13,497 ft) over the sea level in the bolivian Potosí Department, close to the border with Chile.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Laguna Honda (in English "Deep Lagoon") is a salt lake located at 4,114 metres (13,497 ft) over the sea level in the bolivian Potosí Department, close to the border with Chile. All by me, Poco2 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 12:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - More South American beauty. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan Kekek. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --w.carter-Talk 14:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Deep blue sky understandable given the altitude. Makes a lovely contrast with the barren ground and its earth tones. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request a geotag will be fine and useful ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Photographer (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ...and geotag please. -- -donald- (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Added Poco2 06:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! (I'd prefer 16:9 format for this kind of pictures, still it's great) --PierreSelim (talk) 06:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. --El Grafo (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Lilium kesselringianum in Sochi.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2016 at 21:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Endemic to Caucasus Lilium kesselringianum in habitat in Caucasian biosphere reserve.

File:Haapsalu Maarja õigeusu kirik.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2016 at 18:07:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Haapsalu
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Iifar - uploaded by Iifar - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kasir (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting angle. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beautiful, and the clouds really help the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not perfect—there is distortion at the edges, which seems to be an aftereffect of perspective correction, and it looks like there might have been a GND filter in the mix, too—but those are tradeoffs that had to be made. Daniel Case (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some kind of distortion visible, but nevertheless very good and sharp --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --w.carter-Talk 11:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the sky colours looks weird (or HDRly overprocessed). --PierreSelim (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Olustvere mõisa viinavabrik ja härjatall.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2016 at 18:04:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olustvere
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Iifar - uploaded by Iifar - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kasir (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The reflection is not perfect, looks like it was a windy moment when the picture was taken. The whole picture looks somewhat overexposed, too. The light situation is not that interesting and the colours are very pale. In other words: No wow. --Code (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I respect this picture and feel a little like a stinker for opposing it. My reasons are different from Code's: I feel like there's too much water in the picture, and from this viewer's point of view, I feel like I'm sort of drowning in it, maybe partly because of the angle. I'd like the photo a lot more and might very well support it if it were cropped to just in front of the reflection of the building on the right, because I like the sky and would feel like that's the right amount of water. I admit that this isn't fully thought through and might not be a completely logical point of view, but it's more substantive than if I just wrote "no wow". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral To quote another good Wikipedian: "Meh..." --w.carter-Talk 11:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
*@W.carter: Wouldn't en:Meh automatically mean oppose because "no wow"? ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
*Not by default, since it could also include a bit of uncertainty about the tech quality which has very little to do with the wow-factor. :-P w.carter-Talk 10:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Volva habei 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jul 2016 at 16:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Five views of a shell of Volva habei
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones, shells and fossils
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kasir (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It's beautiful at full-page size, but as a personal preference, I'd like a bit more sharpness at full size. It's nothing drastic, though, and I won't oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, as usual. The sharpness is actually much better than I would expect from a photo of something that contains pearls or mother of pearl. The substance is devilishly hard to get a focus on (I know!!) since the microscopic aragonite chrystals in the surface throws the camera's sensors all over the place. w.carter-Talk 12:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comment --Llez (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:International Commerce Centre on Victoria Harbour.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 22:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

International Commerce Centre on Victoria Harbour

File:Merivarblane.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 22:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cyclopterus lumpus

File:Lightning in Dallas 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 17:56:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mitchel Coombs - nominated by Natuur12 -- Natuur12 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Natuur12 (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 21:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Remarkable picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Talk about perfect timing! w.carter-Talk 09:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW!!!! GREAT!!!! Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) German-Language-Flag.svgRegiowikiat-logo-vorschlag3.png 10:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Leaning in - see power pole --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kasir (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A beautiful image no doubt, but in addition to the perspective issue noted by Uoaei1 I am bothered by the deep indigo tint of the sky. I know, I know, most great lightning pictures are long exposures, so this might be possible as a natural effect. But the .EXIF data says nothing about what camera was used, to say nothing of its settings, so we can't tell. I suspect some heavy processing here. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Reguyla (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Agapanthus 'White Heaven', ingetogen schoonheid van de ontluikende bloemknop. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 03.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 16:33:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants # Family Agapanthaceae.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Agapanthus 'White Heaven', understated beauty of budding flower bud. Location, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei in the Netherlands. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support w.carter-Talk 17:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Normal good quality image, no reason for FP. --Karelj (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Much more than normal good quality to me. That plant is beautiful! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely shades of green, subtly deployed. I would have cropped tighter, but I defer to the photographer's choice here. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't understand Karelj...hovewer and 7 --LivioAndronico (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good and sharp. However, I do not like the crop, as the right half of the image is empty. If possible, you should move the bloom to the right. --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I think having the stem starting at the corner adds to the pic. It is just budding and just "comming in from the left" as if it is a bit shy. Yes I know, poetic nonsense to most, but we are allowed to be subjective here, that is what beauty is all about. w.carter-Talk 12:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

*Note: The photo I obviously can crop so that the bud is right in the middle. Personally, I find it so playful and in my opinion the proportions. But the review is to you all.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Holy Trinity Cathedral - Niš.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 11:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fragment of the Holy Trinity Cathedral in the city of Niš
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I find the symmetry beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In this case I find the symmetry correct --Llez (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as for symmetry, both towers should be in bright light. And this sky is very dark and weird. And as for educational purpose, we don't have scale. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton. --Karelj (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI, yes. But I have personaly dozens of such pictures of similar views to submit here... This is not original neither outstanding. For those who don't know, FP reviewers are kindly requested to review some quality image candidates, then they could see the difference, and what is expected here in FPC.--Jebulon (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Lac de Tunis Sud 19.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 07:38:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sight on Lake of Tunis

File:Galite-Galiton 122.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 07:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Turlules' love in La Galite island
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Turlules' love in La Galite island created by ~~---- - uploaded by ~~---- - nominated by IssamBarhoumi -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- IssamBarhoumi (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI for sure, but no feature for me, nothing special. --Ikan Kekekschnabel 07:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree. It's a good capture but nothing really exceptional. I want to compliment you for taking good pictures, though, so please don't interpret opposition to a feature with showing disrespect for your work. I think you will break through sooner or later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - dear Ikan Kekek thank you for the encouragement I ll improve everything --IssamBarhoumi (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality image for sure but not quite a featured picture. Shall I point out that the subject may lack some contrast versus the background. The background also looks quite busy. These are the main reasons the picture doesn't quite stand out as a FP for me. --Ximonic (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What Ikan says. Please keep going! :) w.carter-Talk 10:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. I'm amused by the idea of a turtle-sex picture and I can easily imagine this getting memed in hilarious and unexpected ways, but the subject matter alone does not make it featurable, and there isn't enough wow as an image. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Loreleyblick Maria Ruh.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 07:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Perspective from the viewpoint Maria Ruh near Urbar over the Rhine to the Lorelei
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jörg Braukmann| - uploaded by Milseburg - nominated by Milseburg -- Milseburg (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Milseburg (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed, esp. the camp site to the left. Pity. Anyway, it’s not too difficult to re-take this shot.--Kreuzschnabel 07:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose yes, the image is overexposed. But that's easy to fix --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for giving feedback. Some little parts are bright, but overall I dont´t think it´s overexposed. It will be difficult for me to make a new oder revised version within the next few weeks. --Milseburg (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral pending correction of noted flaws. Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Winter Palace Panorama 4.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 05:47:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg, viewed from Palace Embankment
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Florstein - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I find this composition very restful and pleasant for the eyes, and the Winter Palace is a lovely building. Surprisingly, there is as yet no Featured Picture of this palace. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Colours look severely oversaturated for me, especially the blue water and the red things in front of the building. Unbalanced composition with an adjacent building to the left and none to the right, a bit more slanted perspective from the right could compensate for that. --Kreuzschnabel 07:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works for me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Photographer (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kreuzschnabel; it also looks to me like it might be slightly tilted. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I didn't notice. Florstein, if you notice anything, feel free to edit with notice to everyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No, I'm sure that the picture is not tilted, but the embankment sagged a bit in the center. And no, I can't build a building in the right side to make symmetrical composition. :) And no - we need strictly frontal view for this building. --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is OK for me --Llez (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment About stitching errors. Alas, stitch a running water without errors at all is almost impossible, I bet you know. However, these smallest flaws are hardly visible and attempts to clone up the seams may equally affect the quality. This is a very big niggle, I guess. --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A.Savin 20:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Veado-campeiro macho no Parque Nacional da Serra da Canastra alt.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jul 2016 at 03:05:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Veado-campeiro macho no Parque Nacional da Serra da Canastra
@The Photographer: Eu só queria que você desfizesse a correção de perspectiva. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Obrigado Arion, não entanto, foi um trabalho que fiz sem salvar uma versão com a correção de perspectiva somente. Deixa pra lá, depois tento fazer de novo. --The Photographer (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Cataratas do Iguaçu - Vista de cima.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 23:15:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Iguazu Falls - view from the observation deck.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Mayravbf - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 23:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I feel this picture is missing some wow, compared to other photos in the same category, such as [4] (spectacular but a bit noisy), [5] (a fine picture but with less sky than this one) and my favorite: [6]. For my money, the last one is the one we should feature, and in fact, I'll put it in my FPC cue in case no-one nominates it first. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Perhaps because of the rainbow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the rainbow makes the pictures more spectacular. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Qualified support The horizon could be sharper, but on the whole this stands out among waterfall pictures. Moving my support to the edited version below. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Photographer (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Alt version

Iguazu Falls - view from the observation deck.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info WB, shadowns, noise, sharpening were altered. --The Photographer (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The Photographer (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Superb! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Those edits did it. This version is great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The colors are better here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --w.carter-Talk 12:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this is very explored place to photograph, even us have better photos, sample, in the end of rain season, in a better hour to shoot... This photo is in the dry season, less water, less power, with a longer expose, the cloud could go away, a huge area of pure artefacts (note), and the lack of sharpness let me think that this is just a snapshot, not a FP. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Only a litle note, remember that it's a compact camera (no posible do a long exposition with this camera, for example) --The Photographer (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
And the equipment not been adequate, is not a excuse to us classify as a good photo, or give more credited for this. ;) Actually, with technique even me know how to suppress the limitation of using a compact camera to create a long exposure look... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I know this camera and how is difficult create a long exposure, basically you need hack the camera installing another operative system, also the sensor problem that impact the image quality. In this image composition the zoom is irrelevant imho --The Photographer (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Again:
"Canon PowerShot SX40 HS is a superzoom [camera], and have a M mode. (see?}"
"And the equipment not been adequate, is not a excuse to us classify as a good photo, or give more credited for this. ;) Actually, with technique even me know how to suppress the limitation of using a compact camera to create a long exposure look... "-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 15:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
And I didn't say that we need 30s of exposure, just that a longer exposure could clear the clouds, the image is average to bad. And the editions added a huge amount of artefacts -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Long exposition version

Iguazu Falls - view from the observation deck.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Long exposure version is a decompiling of the original version and what could be done in the first moment, thanks to Rodrigo comments. --The Photographer (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't know whether I would have supported this version if it had been the only one offered, but I find the shorter-exposure version clearer and more alive. Both versions have merit, but I don't get what the advantage of this version is supposed to be, and whatever it is, it's lost on me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Regulation of gene expression.svg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 21:28:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Regulation of gene expression
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Computer-generated
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Ali Zifan. It also passed under the W3C validator without any errors and warnings. Ali Zifan 21:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ali Zifan 21:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it's oversimplification. Getting through the membrane isn't that simple and protein hormones (like insulin) just connect to membrane proteins, that then pass on the signal with a cascadal process via mediator molecules. Ok, steroid hormones do enter the cell (not that there is any reference that this is the case with this drawing), but just binding to the receptor and then entering to the nucleus without anything happening to the receptor should be rather uncommon (like why should it float in the cytoplasm and then miraculously decide to enter the nucleus if nothing hasn't changed? there should be at least some conformational change in the receptor). And often there are some co-regulators. And then there is amplification, that is totally taken out from the equation in here. P.S: It might be more practical to base your diagram on some specific gene regulation example. You can do the drawing, but I'm not convinced on the scientific backstory. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This diagram actually shows regulation of gene expression by steroid hormone receptor. Hormones that are fat soluble (like steroid) are able to pass through the cell membrane directly and produce their effect by binding to receptors inside the cell. So as you mentioned, and I thank you for that, every regulation of genes won't be the same, and this diagram exclusively display gene expression by steroid hormones. Since Steroid hormone receptors directly regulate gene expression, they would enter the nucleus and it doesn't mean that it will be done "miraculously". I also change the description of the file and requested to rename a file to "Regulation of gene expression by steroid hormone receptor". Ali Zifan 01:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
And as I mentioned before, then there are other issues beside the type of hormone depicted. So naturally I'm not going to change my vote (as if it would had been only that, I would just have suggested to add that "steroid" part into it). And with that "miraculously" I meant that ligand binding usually induces a conformational change in a receptor protein (i.e. there is a reason why it enters the nucleus after binding the hormone). I can't see that in your image. There is just this weird dark hole that is filled. And then again, all of this could be told in an image description and not on the image itself, but there isn't much of a description at a moment.
So, I would definitely wish for a better image description, as at a moment there is more text on the diagram, than on the descriptional part of it. And I'm not fully sure about the used terms as well ("extraocular fluid"(?); and I'd prefer "cell membrane"; and why don't you mention the ribosomes). I don't mind the simplified depiction itself, but without a good textual part to back it up, then it just ain't enough. It is still an encyclopedia. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for now. It is an exellently executed image, with the requisite option for several languages, but even the two paragraphs of bio-speak above gives me a headache... As soon as someone with more knowledge than I assures me that the science behind it is right, I'll change my vote to support. w.carter-Talk 13:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If Daniel says so. ;) BTW, I like the purple, it makes the pic pop. Wish I'd had illustrations like this on my school books. w.carter-Talk 21:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nominator's explanation above; it sounds good enough for me. However, I do think a better color could be chosen than that strong purple, which I see as kind of distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Daniel --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Aigrette garzette au lac sud de Tunis (site RAMSAR).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 21:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Little egret in the Lake of Tunis
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by El Golli Mohamed - uploaded by El Golli Mohamed - nominated by Touzrimounir -- Touzrimounir (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Touzrimounir (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice , but sorry: oversharpened. Very pity. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Please look at pictures of birds that have been featured lately. Except when something else, such as their environment, is also being focused on, they tend to be clear to the point that almost every individual feather seems to be separately visible. The tail feathers or part of the head might be just a little bit soft in focus, but few concessions are made. And the upshot is that this is a good picture, but below the extremely high FP level for birds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Like Ikan, I see the overprocessing clearly. Aesthetically, however, I think a better, bigger version of this would work with some of the dead space on the right cropped out. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Piedras Rojas, salar de Aguas Calientes, Chile, 2016-02-08, DD 69.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 21:22:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Piedras Rojas (in English "Red Stones"), a singular rock formation in the Aguas Calientes salt flat, high puna of northern Chilean Andes.

01:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) German-Language-Flag.svg 06:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I won't oppose but I'd prefer a much tighter, more panoramic crop. Parts of the lake seem redundant, the sky is more important here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Falbisoner (talk • contribs) Poco2 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    I understand what you are asking for Martin and, actually, if you look into the previous version of this image you will see that I tried to increase the panorama feeling. On the other side I also think that it is interesting to look into the bottom area, that gives the view an idea of the salt lake (including small piles of salt) with great detail Poco2 19:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Convinced Face-smile.svg --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree on panoramic crop. The lake is a salt lake and I think the idea is to show off the piles of salt produced by it. w.carter-Talk 12:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More lovely, almost abstract colors. Daniel Case (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dэя-Бøяg 22:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File:A small boy tries to look mean for the camera in Afghanistan.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 19:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A small boy tries to look mean for the camera in Afghanistan
Ikan Kekek When I saw the picture the intense look on the kids face along with the clarity of the image struck me and made me think it would be a good candidate for FP. Reguyla (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
On reflection, and after looking at the photo again, I think you're right. The photo is rather memorable. I also can't understand using the idea of the photo being good for Time or Life as a reason to oppose a feature. I Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the idea but I wonder if perhaps the boy's expression is him registering his displeasure with being cropped so tightly. Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This may be a pic for Time or ye olde LIFE magazine, but it has nothing FP for me. w.carter-Talk 12:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If it's good enough for ol' LIFE, then it's good enough for me. And FPC ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice quality, pretty sharp, and powerful eyes, 3x2 is weird uh, I would crop tighter, and vertical, or a square, square would work here... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Alt

A small boy tries to look mean for the camera in Afghanistan (edited).jpg

  • It's a quote used by those nerds who love that movie too. :) Just a small innocent addition in case there are some of them here. I know that there are many movie enthusiasts at Commons. It's nothing important. w.carter-Talk 18:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Mina de Chuquicamata, Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 121.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 19:25:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mina de Chuquicamata, Calama, Chile
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Interior view of Chuquicamata, a state-owned copper mine located 2,850 metres (9,350 ft) above sea level just outside Calama, north of Chile. It is by excavated volume the largest open pit copper mine in the world. The huge hole was started in 1882 as a mine to extract gold and copper. It is 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) long, 4.5 kilometres (2.8 mi) wide and with a depth of 850 metres (2,790 ft) it is the second deepest open-pit mine in the world (after Bingham Canyon Mine in Utah, USA). Note: to get a feeling of the scale spot out a haul truck, which is 9.5 metres (31 ft) long and 4.5 metres (15 ft) high.

    An exterior view of the mine by Poco a poco gained FP status earlier (File:Mina de Chuquicamata, Calama, Chile, 2016-02-01, DD 110-112 PAN.JPG). This interior view is much different. The composition is well done, the technical quality is excellent, and the huge scale of the mine is even more clearly demonstrated. I also love the colors and texture of the rock layers.

    Created and uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by INeverCry 19:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 19:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Reguyla (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but perhaps there should be a bit more cropping on the right side to eliminate the unsharp foreground in the lower right corner. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cool, thank you INeverCry, it was quicker than I expected. Should I crop it as Ikan suggested or do you want to re-nominate :P? Poco2 21:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: I like it as is and wouldn't want to lose any of the road at bottom right in a crop. But it's your image, so you can make changes as you see fit. Personally I'm fed up with FPC and won't be participating here any more, as it's gotten less and less enjoyable for me over time. Good luck with this candidate. I'll stick to looking at nominations and downloading copies of the ones I like for my personal collection. INeverCry 21:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Talk about what's taking the fun away for you, if you like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That would be really a pity, I'd also like to understand why Poco2 19:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ali Zifan 21:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Leave it be, you would loose the contrast between steps and slide. w.carter-Talk 21:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 23:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely texture and detail that unexpectedly works in this orientation. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Noivinha-branca (Xolmis velatus) no Parque Nacional da Serra da Canastra.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 14:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White-rumped monjita (Xolmis velatus) at the Serra da Canastra National Park

File:CRS-9 mission (28348649546).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2016 at 14:30:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SpaceX CRS-9 start and landing
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by SpaceX - uploaded by MsaynevirtaIMG - nominated by Ras67 -- Ras67 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wow for the new technical possibilities, also high educational value. Ras67 (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This pic has everything I don't want in a FP. It is too small, too grainy, not sharp enough, everything is tilted and the lights are posterized. Even so, I will Symbol support vote.svg Support it since it is a very unusual image of one of the first, major, successful start and first-stage landing captured in the same image. That is wow enough for me. w.carter-Talk 20:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - W.carter's points are well taken, but I think either some more background information or a link to a page that specifically explains the mission would be needed for the picture to have sufficient informative value for me to feel that a feature is justified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Links now provided at the file's page + an artist's rendition as "other version". The whole thing happened today. Thanks for noticing Ikan. w.carter-Talk 21:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I now Symbol support vote.svg Support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for historic importance. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) German-Language-Flag.svgRegiowikiat-logo-vorschlag3.png 06:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is an incredible long exposure shot in itself, with a very impressive wide view. But what it shows is even more remarkable. All in a single, non composited, 9min shot, which really helps understanding the process. - Benh (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Sant'Antonio da Padova all'Esquilino - Interior.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2016 at 22:31:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sant'Antonio da Padova all'Esquilino - Interior
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment what you mean for "dusk image"?--LivioAndronico (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the muted light. The mural at the back looks properly lit. INeverCry 01:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I actually find that fresco a bit too bright, particularly at full size, but overall, the room looks quite good and I think this is a successful picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not convinced by the composition. There's too much floor and not enough space at the top. Then the benches in the foreground are too dark, they look nearly black. I also notice some pincushion distortion. The floor doesn't look straight but is leaning out on both sides (and so does the top part of the picture). A good QI but not one of our finest church interiors, I think. --Code (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Code, especially about the composition. I need more "up" and less "down".--Jebulon (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done for the distortions,however this church is famous for the ground and more the up is only white....thanks --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good true light, nice true view! I'm feeling the interior from the church. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 23:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A little dim but that in this case means that everything appears more realistic, with minimal post-processing visible. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's good, but I'm not convinced it's one the finest church interior images we have. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very distorted image, especially at the right side. The altar is not sharp, and weird shadows are present. Capture One is the best fixer for that. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton 14:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Eight windows wrapped in plastic.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2016 at 18:54:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stretch-wrapped windows
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- w.carter-Talk 18:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- w.carter-Talk 18:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like this photo. It's not an extremely complicated motif, but it is fun to look at and strikes me as having some of the experimental spirit of early periods of photography, exploring the power of the medium to observe objects and the way light shines through them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great, thanks! Absolutely per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The brightness at top left is my one small quibble, but I like this overall. A creative idea that works 95% for me. INeverCry 06:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks! :) I totally understand your point since I also fought with the decision on whether I should keep the very bright left or tone it down or crop it out. In the end I decided to keep it since the frames form a sort of "color sample gradient" and those usually go from absolute white to the darkest of the color. w.carter-Talk 07:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We might be looking at the next MS Windows default wallpaper ;) - Benh (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • LOL!!! Face-grin.svg It would be appropriate for Windows 8... w.carter-Talk 09:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe wrapping spoils it for me. If there were just 8 windows getting greener without any distracting element, that would be nicer. Less is more here. --Kreuzschnabel 13:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was to support with enthousiasm, but I notice that the extreme left vertical up line is overexposed or blown up. No details are visible. Maybe a crop would help ? Anyway, something "fresh" here !--Jebulon (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As you can see from my comment above to INC, I have been debating this thing with myself. I did a version (not uploaded) with that toned down where details are visible. Still not 100% sure what to do... w.carter-Talk 18:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dilly-dallying done. I made a very bold move, given the discussion going on at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates about altering a pic during nomination. Hope this is still ok, or should I 'ping' everybody? The little troublesome white part is now toned down just enough so that details begin to show, at least at full size. Thank you Jebulon for kicking my butt sufficiently to make this alteration. :) w.carter-Talk 19:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - That's a very subtle difference to my eyes. It couldn't hurt to ping, of course, but I wonder whether it would make the difference between a supporting and an opposing vote for anyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I feel a bit stupid: I did not read the discussion with INC before writing my own comment...But well, I see that we were at least three (including you), with the same idea, so we are not wrong ! About the change during the nomination: I agree with Ikan Kekek. A) the change is minor, B) it results of a debate, C) it is an obvious improvement, D) and I thik it would/should not change any vote. All is correct for me. Let's feel a real and free minded enthousiasm for this picture. I think the wrapping adds in composition, by the way !--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Je vous embrasse, monsieur! I also think the wrapping adds to it, sort of like "speed-blur" on an otherwise rather large and just green area as the windows swoosh through space. w.carter-Talk 21:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ali Zifan 21:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely textures and shades. Glad to see this very different image here ... I had intended to be the one to promote it to QI but was prevented from doing so by an edit conflict. At that time I suspected we'd see more of it ... obviously I was right. Daniel Case (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good idea --Llez (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Lunar Rainbow at Victoria Falls HP L2778e2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2016 at 09:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lunar rainbow, Victoria Falls
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - What an unusual phenomenon! I've never seen a lunar rainbow! But do you think you could reduce the noise at full size? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I tested it with more bad results. It is a long exposure night 10s ISO 3200 shoot! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a very unusual thing to see and I would have been inclined to support it on that fact alone, but checking the Category:Moonbows it seems like it is possible to get pics with more light of moonbows from that location. Perhaps you need to be there at full moon at a time of the year when there is some residual blue in the sky even during night. This is one of the darkest pics in that category. For what it's worth, this pic looks better in larger format. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 17:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It was at full moon and in the night. ;-) The other cat images are also visible with a part of sunlight!?! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      • That was the residual light I was referring to. I know that full night pics are very, very hard to get visible. You sometimes have to have such long exposure that the stars become short lines, about a minute or so. w.carter-Talk 18:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I wanted to take an image only by moonlight with one of the best cameras for that. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark and noisy. INeverCry 18:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Night rainbow....--LivioAndronico (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry is right - but so is Livio Face-wink.svg --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noisy... (even with the NR which smeared details, and Canon is definitely not one of the best camera for such pictures, look at the color blotches) and questionnable composition. But interesting phenomenon. - Benh (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral changed my mind after looking at Category:Moonbows. It's underexposed in my opinion, even for a night shot. - Benh (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yet, there is noise but its ok for FP. --Ralf Roleček 14:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rarity of phenomenon depicted overcomes technical shortcomings. Daniel Case (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Veado-campeiro macho no Parque Nacional da Serra da Canastra.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2016 at 00:20:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pampas deer (Ozotoceros bezoarticus) at the Serra da Canastra National Park
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Nortondefeis - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • still Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral – looks a bit too reddish for my taste, and unfortunate crop giving more space below than above. Crop suggestion added (to get the animal a bit de-centered as well). --Kreuzschnabel 08:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I can accept unsharp background more readily than unsharp foreground, which really looks unnatural to me. I'll be willing to reconsider if you try Kreuzschnabel's suggested crop, which should get rid of a lot of the unsharp foreground, but I don't guarantee I'll support the result. For now, I will Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Information to @Kreuzschnabel, Ikan Kekek: ✓ Cropped. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks! Improved IMHO. Not sure it passes FP threshold for me but certainly got closer to it :-) --Kreuzschnabel 17:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I agree on both counts but don't feel impelled to change my opposition to neutral. I may reconsider later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A decent deer shot, but overall too red and the deer looks like it needs to calm down a bit after being startled by the photographer. INeverCry 18:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent quality and lovely --The Photographer (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I can accept the warmth of the image as likely an effect of shooting at what was probably evening golden hour (I assume this was in South America somewhere, where that time of day would be around sunset at this time of year). But the background is noisier than I would expect for what is clearly not a long exposure, and given that the metadata tells us more about what software was used than the camera used to create the image I am not willing to !vote without knowing more about what details of this image's creation might explain these things. Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Alasti keiser, Edward von Lõnguse töö Tartus.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jul 2016 at 00:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"The naked emperor", stencil graffiti by Edward von Lõngus
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Kruusamägi (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info "The naked emperor", stencil graffiti by Edward von Lõngus. Tartu, Estonia.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. The wood is very distracting and adds nothing to the picture, in my opinion. If you crop all of it out completely, I will be happy to reconsider at that time and would probably support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I had the same thought as Ikan at first glance. I would probably support after a crop as well. INeverCry 00:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do prefer the wooden wall to be there and I think it helps to complete the image. Without that it would seem too sterile to me (it's still a graffiti). And with that kind of detail the exact location of the work becomes identifiable even when the work itself would not be there anymore. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The drawing might be funny but we judge the photographic work, which is really nothing extraordinary here. Blueish colours, random composition. --Kreuzschnabel 08:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. INeverCry 19:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kreuzschnabel. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm usually a fan of this kind of street art and pics of such should include some of the surroundings just to highlight where the art was done, but after some deliberation I have to concur with Kreuzschnabel. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 08:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Consolata Cemetery 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 23:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Consolata Cemetery

*Symbol support vote.svg Support - Moving. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 00:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that's a wow! w.carter-Talk 00:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Changing my vote to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral since I don't know what's going on here. w.carter-Talk 16:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Foto um pouco velha, mas tá valendo. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Per users above. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong oppose Blunt, shoddy cutout to get the background blurred (see edge of hair). Sorry but this is so obvious even in the preview! How this got through QI I cannot imagine. I don’t fancy the composition either. Portrait orientation showing more of the statue would have been better. --Kreuzschnabel 08:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I reverted to original version, however, I'm not sure if the cut is ok. Please, let me know if it's ok for you. --The Photographer (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above "shoddy cutout to get the background blurred", a photomontage would produce the same effect Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Reverted at 15:37, 17. Jul. 2016. Please do not alter nominated images through voting period without strong reason! This is very bad practice IMHO, compromising any comment/voting given before. Ikan Kekek, INeverCry, w.carter, ArionEstar, please reconsider your voting now. Candidate has been replaced by a very commonplace shot. And please comment on my proposal on the talk page – thx! --Kreuzschnabel 16:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Due to the picture itself, and the going on nomination process.--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to the process, but I would also oppose a feature for this picture. I think it's fine to offer alternatives or make edits within reason, but this is too radical an edit to make during the nomination process and should require withdrawal and then renomination of the version you would want considered. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of the radical changes to the picture made above, noted in !votes Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Excavator RK 5000 Lom ČSA Czech Republic 2016 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 21:10:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bucket chain excavator RK 5000.0/R10 in the coal mine Lom ČSA in Czech Republic
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - You should nominate this photo for Quality Image, but it doesn't excite me enough to support a feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. INeverCry 00:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, the idea is not too bad but the perfomance could be better. No chance on QI either, for the blown clouds. --Kreuzschnabel 08:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others; too busy plus blown clouds in background. Nice idea though. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Karelj (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Charles Follen McKim by Frances Benjamin Johnston.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 21:16:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Architect Charles Follen McKim

#10wikicommonsdays Day 2

File:Ibrahim Pasha Mosque, Razgrad.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 20:44:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ibrahim Pasha Mosque in Razgrad, Bulgaria, completed in the beginning of 17th century.
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Especially the minaret looks distorted. -- Spurzem (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I don't feel wowed but I do agree that the composition is quite good. The pile of dirt on the right side bothers me somewhat, but hey, it was there, so it's in the picture. I've changed to opposing, though, because if this building is supposed to have straight walls at right angles, that's not what I see. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan, surprisingly. Quite good but no wow but an FP needs wow to rise above a QI (see guidelines). Then, I don’t really like the washed-out colours (still, I’ve never been there, maybe it really looks that way) and the perspective distortion on the minaret either. --Kreuzschnabel 08:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yes, I know about the guidelines, but sometimes, I make a bit of an allowance for liking a picture and just for some reason not feeling a wow. I won't make a really strong argument for this picture, though. By the way, there's another picture below that I so far can't decide whether to oppose on the basis of no wow, or possibly to support. I don't feel that "no wow" is a persuasive argument per se, though I sometimes fall back on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Never mind. I addressed the other photo below with a more detailed argument than "no wow" and have on reflection changed my vote on this picture to oppose because I don't believe it's likely that a 17th-century mosque really looks like that. In other words, Spurzem's argument seems meritorious to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To my eye the whole thing looks distorted almost bloated, but it also appears to be disused with plants growing on it and such, so maybe it has just settled that way. That said it does not wow me. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 11:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, just a little too busy. I could see what the photographer was thinking but unfortunately it didn't come through. Agree that it's a QI, though. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. INeverCry 18:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too strong distortet. --Ralf Roleček 14:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Caça sobre o Rio.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 14:53:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fighter jet flying over Rio de Janeiro
  • Probably dirt on the window it's taken through judging from the "plane window-shaped" shadow on the left. At just 0,6 Mb it's also a bit on the small side. w.carter-Talk 18:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no FP/ JukoFF (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Aside from the dirt spots, the picture isn't actually clear I'm afraid. The ground is out of focus either cause of motion blur, haze, or distance, while the jet is underexposed against the bright sky. -- KTC (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KTC. INeverCry 21:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KTC. w.carter-Talk 22:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - If you eliminate the dust spots, I will support. Otherwise, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I have pretty much zero skills regarding image manipulation. If anyone reading feels like it, it would be nice to have it retouched. ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 00:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even with the dust spots cleaned up, I don't think I feel the wow. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 10:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Anathomia, a Mais Correcta - folha de rosto.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 14:48:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Frontispiece of the 1780 medicine book Anathomia, a Mais Correcta
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media#Text
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Manuel Constâncio (1725-1817) - uploaded by NMaia - nominated by NMaia -- ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: If anyone knows a way to extract a higher res quality from the pdf, feel free to upload a better version :) -- ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I prefer the .pdf version and with higher resolution. Is it possible? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's tilted and I don't know what the historic importance is. Daniel Case (talk) 03:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because apart from being tilted, it’s way below 2 mpix minimum size --Kreuzschnabel 08:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Elictites no Floresta Branca.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 13:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Helictites in Floresta Branca, Bezerra cave, Terra Ronca State Park.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by JOSE HUMBERTO MATIAS DE PAULA - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild (see comment) Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh yes. I've liked this pic since the first time I saw it. I'm terrified that she will breathe too hard or trip and break some of the formations! Sharp and good, BUT I think it is tilted since stalactites always grow straight down due to gravity (water drops are clearly visible at the end of the stalactites). Any chance that the creator could straighten it or at least comment on if my suspicion is right. w.carter-Talk 14:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good -- Spurzem (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Amazing image quality, however, IMHO cut, tight and unnatural composition --The Photographer (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@The Photographer: Why "unnatural composition"? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
IMhO the girl/boy has a forced pose of working, however, composition cut and tight is what make my vote neutral --The Photographer (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per The Photographer. Composition looks too tight, like she's too close to the formations. INeverCry 21:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just to see how it looked, I did a slightly rotated version of the file, and it does not look as "tight" as in the tilted version where she seems to be leaning into the formations. Her proximity to the crystals also provides a good size/scale-thing. Let's hope the original editor can take a look at that and see if this is something to consider. w.carter-Talk 22:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
@W.carter: Thanks! Add as alternative. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I find both versions too crowded-looking with the person in the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The person in the image may be wowed, but I'm not. Daniel Case (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Elictites no Floresta Branca version 2.jpg

File:GUADELOUPE DYNAMIQUE 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 12:32:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

GUADELOUPE DYNAMIQUE at the Transat Québec–Saint-Malo
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Measured support Pitch of boat and spray gives it a bit more than a just-QI straight-up view would. Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The overall light level is too low for me. The boat and sails don't pop. INeverCry 21:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even if I love boats and know that this lead-grey sea is usually how it is, I have to agree with INC that it is a bit too dark for a wow. In this kind of light there needs to be something extraordinary going on for a pic to stand out. Sorry. w.carter-Talk 23:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice sailboat, but the scene is otherwise ordinary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow on my side, dull light, and centered compositions hardly ever work for moving objects. --Kreuzschnabel 08:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per other. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 10:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File:2016 Pałac w Żelaźnie 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jul 2016 at 11:30:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Palace in Żelazno
@Ikan Kekek: ✓ Done --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. However, I'd actually crop even more from the foreground, maybe half the distance to the model of the palace on the right. I'll look at this picture again tomorrow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - There's something that doesn't wow me about the composition. It's certainly a good picture, and the composition is well-considered, but I don't really have that enjoyable an experience of moving my eyes around the picture frame. And I think the reason I wanted (and still want) more of a crop of the foreground is that until we get to the shrub on the left side and shrubs and models of buildings on the right, there's nothing (except maybe the hedges, but those don't help with a large swath of ground to the left) that helps my eyes move toward the palace except for the road. I think this is a very good QI, but I respectfully dissent from the votes to feature this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Однажды у берега моря. Панорама.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 15:03:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Peter the Great Gulf, Sea of Japan. Russia. Сreated by Андрей Кровлин - uploaded by Андрей Кровлин - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JukoFF (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, this pic is just too heavily processed/retouched for me. There is clearly a lot of post-processing done and yet no {{Retouched picture}} is added to the file, there are clone marks on the cliffs on both sides of the horizon, some coordinates would also be nice since it is associated with a protected area that few people outside Russia understands the meaning of. A translation of the description in say English, French, Spanish or German could also be added to better understand the pic. It would make a great cover for a fantasy novel though. w.carter-Talk 20:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very unusual-looking scene. I do agree that there's something that looks a bit off about the water and sky at full size, but I'm satisfied with the picture at full-page size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellents colors and amazing sharpening, exposition, etc. --The Photographer (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per W. Carter. I do understand this was a long exposure, but we should know more about what was done in post. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per W. Carter --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMeiræ 11:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but simply too much HDR kitsch. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love the otherworldy eerie vibe I get from this. ~nmaia [[mia diskuto]] 14:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 17:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alchemist.--Jebulon (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnatural --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per w.carter who I agree completely. I like the picture but it's not quite up to what I expect from Wikipedia/Commons FP standard. Post-process has gone through too much artistic freedom to be concidered educational. Too little useful information is provided. I would understand better if such picture was a purposeful showcase of a post-processing technique. --Ximonic (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose +1, too much HDR kitsch. --Ralf Roleček 14:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Milseburg (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 10:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Worcester Cathedral, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 11:10:24 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kasir (talk) 11:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support w.carter-Talk 20:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) German-Language-Flag.svg 21:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Of course this is outstanding, fantastic and any other superlative you'd like to write. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMeiræ 11:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Nice, but I don't understand the set. Don't we miss one nave ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean. There's only one nave in the cathedral. Or do you mean there are photos taken by myself that are not in this set? If the latter, then yes that's true, there are others that Kasir seems to have excluded, including this one of the nave looking in the opposite direction towards the west window. I actually took 7 photos of the interior of this cathedral so I guess there are 4 missing, but perhaps they are not all featureable. Actually this one is already featured. Diliff (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, sorry, I did not understand well, I thought we had here a lateral nave, and I felt I missed the fourth branch of the cross... I'm not confortable with the progression of the pictures. One of them looks to the opposite side of the others if I'm not wrong, that's not clear for me. I could probably support each of them, but not as this set.--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
        • I share the same concerns about the "set". That said, the pictures are impressive as always :). Of course I won't opppose the nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
        • You're right that the image of the choir shows the view in the opposite direction compared to the nave and lady chapel images. I chose the direction of the camera based on the best view rather than to be a sequential 'tour' through the cathedral, but I can see how you might not see it working well as a set. As for the 'fourth branch of the cross, I'm still a bit confused. Do you mean the crossing, or transepts? This is a typical plan of cathedrals in English and seems to be the same terminology in French. I didn't take a photo of the transepts or crossing but I don't remember why. I suppose perhaps it wasn't inspiring. I don't usually have a methodical approach to choosing my photos. I just use my intuition about what views I like or don't like. Diliff (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Pelícano pardo de las Galápagos (Pelecanus occidentalis urinator), Las Bachas, isla Santa Cruz, islas Galápagos, Ecuador, 2015-07-23, DD 28.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 09:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Galapagos brown pelican
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by W.carter
    A nice pic as it looks as if the bird is rearing its head above the water and there is a great contrast between the soft feathers and the gritty stones, although I think that a slight crop to the left would make it even more interesting. See note. -- w.carter-Talk 09:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- w.carter-Talk 09:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I prefer this Featured Picture in category Pelecanus occidentalis urinator, also by Diego. I think the bird is about equally clear in both pictures, but I also prefer the white sand and white sand bokeh of that photo to the more obviously fuzzy bokeh in this one. I expect others to differ. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan, and I also think the bird doesn't stand out enough among the dark rocks. INeverCry 18:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't differ with Ikan; in fact I also find the background distracting given the bird's positioning. Daniel Case (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support I believe that this image has indeed potential and will upload an improved version tomorrow morning (CET). The pelican is crispy everywhere and it is in its most frequent habitat, even if it doesn't stand out as much as one would desire. W.carter, thank you for the nom!! I appreciate it. Poco2 21:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, I find it fascinating, sorry if others don't feel the same way. IMH the black rocks contrast the tip of the beak and the belly better than white sand. w.carter-Talk 21:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version uploaded, I am happy with the result, therefore full support :) Poco2 11:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Good crop and the "downy vs gritty" even more visible now. w.carter-Talk 11:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That definitely improves the foreground, but I still have a problem with the middleground and background, so no change in vote from me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Commodore Grace M. Hopper, USN (covered).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 07:33:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Grace M. Hopper was a pioneer in computer science. She invented the first compiler and had significant involvement in the development of COBOL. While not aesthetically outstanding, the photo has historic value.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People at work
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by James S. Davis - uploaded by Jatkins, edited by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Pine -- Pine 07:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pine 07:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support this, but I'm sorry to say, I don't think the work done on this picture has improved it. To my eyes, there's more detail and life to her face in the original. She might find the revision flattering, as it softens the wrinkles, but I like the greater degree of redness in her face in the original. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Does this mean I should oppose the current revision? Are we charged with opposing a feature if there's another version we consider superior? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I would think you'd be called upon to oppose only if you considered the current nominated version inferior to the point of not being FP worthy at all (I mean called upon in the sense that you yourself would feel an oppose was warranted). I don't think FPC imposes any restrictions on individual voting, aside from obvious problems like sockpuppetry/vote-stacking, canvassing, etc, nor should it. INeverCry 18:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I have another idea: Am I permitted to nominate the original upload as an alternative, although I currently have two active nominations? If not, would someone else please do that? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don’t like the fashion of putting up alternatives, as little as I like subsequent editing. Let’s judge a nomination as it is, no further editing being performed (in order not to compromise the votings given before!) and no alternatives. If the work needs re-editing, then better withdraw the first nomination and put the alternative up as a new candidate. This way the voting would be much clearer. --Kreuzschnabel 08:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've always liked this pic and her no-nonsense expression, but I have to agree with Ikan on this editing. Noise reduction on the background, clothes, etc. is great, but her face has lost a bit of life with it. Wrinkles are an honor badge that you have achieved high age and nothing to hide or retouch. w.carter-Talk 08:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too soft for my taste. Noisy too. No FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Alchemist-hp This image is from 1984. I think for that era it's pretty good. --Pine 15:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentFirst, we usually don’t consider the circumstances a pic has been taken under but judge the result only (except on pictures of greatest historical importance). Second, "pretty good" is not sufficient to be featured. We still look for the outstanding. --Kreuzschnabel 08:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

File:British Army Soldier in Full Kit in Afghanistan MOD 45152579.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jul 2016 at 07:23:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"British Army Soldier in Full Kit in Afghanistan". The file page provides informative details about the soldier's outfit and gear, which increases the encyclopedic value of the photo.
  • Withdrawn per consensus. --Pine 18:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The picture is a bit small; however, it's valuable, interesting and sufficiently well-composed to merit a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Undecided. Yes it's valuable, encyclopedic, well-composed and all, but where is the wow? Perhaps it would be better suited for VI? w.carter-Talk 08:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A soldier, not more. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per/Alchemist-hp JukoFF (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too static. No action or context to give this any excitement or interest. INeverCry 19:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alchemist and INC. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mö1997 (Questions ?!?!) German-Language-Flag.svg 21:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per INeverCry. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 11:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination per consensus above. --Pine 18:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Aurora australis dancing over an LED illuminated igloo.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2016 at 14:19:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aurora australis dancing over an LED illuminated igloo
  • Well, I don't have any trouble with the sky and the aurora being grainy, those are awful tricky to shoot and hey "it's full of stars". I'm more bothered by the snow. It's so grainy that it's visible at a normal 800X530 px view which is a shame because it is such gorgeous pic otherwise. w.carter-Talk 17:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a bit tilted and I'm a bit skeptical about the Igloo lighting, but it's a beautiful photo with both northern lights and a galactic center milky way! My position hasn't changed for noise: shouldn't be a reason to oppose unless it's really terrible. Shooting this is a bit more demanding that any other daylight landscape. - Benh (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support INeverCry 16:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It looks fine at full-page size but it's really noisy at full size. I don't feel I can support this picture but haven't decided whether to oppose and will probably be neutral. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose It's a striking image and I could forgive the noisy background due to the long exposure, but the igloo should have been sharper. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per W.carter. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting idea. The noise level is acceptable for such a picture. --Code (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @All: it is possible to take more acceptable noise level images, sample: Aurora Tromsø Norway HP L8400 e.jpg. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      • As for me, NR is too strong on your picture, and I'd rather leave it like on this condidate. - Benh (talk) 08:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
        • "My" image is an original JPG direct from my camera. Is isn' reworked from the RAW-file. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
          • My point still stands, wether NR was applied in camera or afterwards. - Benh (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jimmy W.carter. Too noisy. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Ahem... that's Jane W.carter, Monsieur. Face-tongue.svg w.carter-Talk 17:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Duomo(Mantua) - Dome.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jul 2016 at 17:39:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Duomo(Mantua) - Dome


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects


Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

Mon 18 Jul → Sat 23 Jul
Tue 19 Jul → Sun 24 Jul
Wed 20 Jul → Mon 25 Jul
Thu 21 Jul → Tue 26 Jul
Fri 22 Jul → Wed 27 Jul
Sat 23 Jul → Thu 28 Jul

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

Thu 14 Jul → Sat 23 Jul
Fri 15 Jul → Sun 24 Jul
Sat 16 Jul → Mon 25 Jul
Sun 17 Jul → Tue 26 Jul
Mon 18 Jul → Wed 27 Jul
Tue 19 Jul → Thu 28 Jul
Wed 20 Jul → Fri 29 Jul
Thu 21 Jul → Sat 30 Jul
Fri 22 Jul → Sun 31 Jul
Sat 23 Jul → Mon 01 Aug

Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]

The bot[edit]

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

Manual procedure[edit]

Any experienced user may close requests.

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    {{FPC-results-reviewed|support=x|oppose=x|neutral=x|featured=("yes" or "no")|category=xxx (leave blank if "featured=no")|sig=~~~~}}
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Bridge (August 2013).jpg). See also {{FPC-results-reviewed}}.
  2. Also edit the title of the candidate image template and add after the image tag
    featured or not featured
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] ===
    becomes
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], featured ===
  3. Save your edit.
  4. If it is featured:
    • Add the picture to the list of the four most recently featured pictures of an appropriate category of Commons:Featured pictures, list as the first one and delete the last one, so that the number is four again.
    • Also add the picture to an appropriate subpage of Commons:Featured pictures, list. Click on the most appropriate link beneath where you just added it as one of the four images.
    • Add the template {{Featured picture}} or {{Assessments|featured=1}} to the image description page.
      • If it was an alternative image, use the subpage/com-nom parameter: For example, if File:Foo.jpg was promoted at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bar.jpg, use {{Assessments|featured=1|com-nom=Bar.jpg}}
      • If the image is already featured on another wikipedia, just add featured=1 to the Assessments template. For instance {{Assessments|enwiki=1}} becomes {{Assessments|enwiki=1|featured=1}}
      • Add the picture to the chronological list of featured pictures. Put it in the gallery using this format: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], uploaded by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]], nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
      • The # should be replaced by 1 for the first image nominated that month, and counts up after that. Have a look at the other noms on that page for examples.
      • You may simplify this if multiple things were done by the same user. E.g.: File:xxxxx.jpg|# - '''Headline'''<br>created, uploaded, and nominated by [[User:xxxxx|xxxxx]]
    • Add == FP promotion ==
      {{FPpromotion|File:XXXXX.jpg}} to the Talk Page of the nominator.
    • Add on the file page its respective categories for Featured pictures of... like Category:Featured pictures of objects, Category:Featured pictures of landscapes, of people, of Germany, of Paris, etc. This is the only part of the process that needs a user who is not a bot to complete it.
  5. As the last step (whether the image is featured or not; including {{FPX}}ed, {{FPD}}ed and withdrawn nominations), open Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list, click on [edit], and find the transclusion of the nomination you've just finished closing. It will be of the form:
    {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:XXXXX.jpg}}
    Copy it to the bottom of Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2016), save that page, and remove it from the candidate list.

Closing a delisting request[edit]

  1. In Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list click on the title/link of the candidate image, then [edit].
    Add the result of the voting at the bottom (on a new line with a space first)
    '''Result:''' x delist, x keep, x neutral => /not/ delisted. ~~~~
    (for example see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Astrolabe-Persian-18C.jpg)
  2. Also edit the title of the delisting candidate image template and add after the image tag
    delisted or not delisted
    For example:
    === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]] === becomes === [[:File:XXXXX.jpg]], delisted ===
  3. Move the actual template from Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list to the bottom of the actual month page on Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 2016.
  4. If the outcome was not delisted, stop here. If it is delisted:
    1. Remove the picture from Commons:Featured pictures, list and any subpages.
    2. Replace the template {{Featured picture}} on the image description page by {{Delisted picture}}. If using the {{Assessments}} template, change featured=1 to featured=2 (do not change anything related to its status in other featured picture processes). Also, remove the image from all categories like Featured pictures of ....
    3. Add a delisting-comment to the original entry in chronological list of featured pictures in bold-face, e. g. delisted 2007-07-19 (1-6) with (1-6) meaning 1 keep and 6 delist votes (change as appropriate). The picture in the gallery is not removed.