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.
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:Torre Acuario 170120.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2017 at 03:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Palacio Hasht Behesht, Isfahán, Irán, 2016-09-20, DD 75-77 HDR.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 20:57:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ceiling in one of the rooms of Hasht Behesht, Isfahan, Iran.

File:Tailor sewing a Somaliland flag, Berbera.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 19:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Unsern lieben Eltern zum 1ten August 1896.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 18:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Swiss family tree
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by an unknown graphic artist in 1896 (scanned in 2011) - uploaded and nominated by Υ.Γ. (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't get what's featurable about this. Maybe if it were digitally restored and its historical importance were further explained (I did click the links from the description). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Canon EF 17-40mm f4L USM collage.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 14:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM lens
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me – Lucas 14:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLucas 14:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing special Charles (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This time --Llez (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good work! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 22:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support By the way my objection was not quite the same as Poco's - I don't really care how many FPs it "counts" as. 11 angles is too many regardless of how it is presented, and this current one is fine either as a collage or as separate images. -- King of ♠ 02:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per KoH. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Historical part of Porto, Portugal.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 14:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Historical part of Porto

File:Igreja do Bonfim, Porto, Portugal.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 13:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church of Bonfim
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by David1010 -- David1010 13:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- David1010 13:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good for a smartphone, but insufficient quality. Charles (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Requires perspective correction (it is leaning in). Also lack of wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. A smartphone isn't a good choice. The image is not sharp enough, JPEG artifacts and the image needs perspective correction. --XRay talk 15:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per XRay – Lucas 15:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Temple of Olympian Zeus Athens Greece 2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 11:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Temple of Olympian Zeus

File:Paraglider near Nebelhorn.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 09:31:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paragliding during sunset. Taken from Nebelhorn, Gemany.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Miha (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Miha (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Gorgeous view and lighting. It would be even better if shifted down - i.e. less sky, and more foreground. -- King of ♠ 09:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 09:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded another version, with a different cut (as proposed by @King of Hearts), and less noise in the sky (i worked with raw file instead of jpg) and thus different saturation settings (I couldn't reconstruct base white balance of raw file to match camera settings for jpg conversion) --Miha (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would vote Symbol support vote.svg Support cause I believe it is an outstanding picture, but I discovered I still haven't 50 edits on my account! ---- Argos of Athens 13:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Shows features of a JPG pushed too far in processing (blockiness, posterisation). -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition good, may be FP. But JPEG artifacts. And the title says "Paraglider", a main motiv. ;-) --XRay talk 13:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but for the opposers --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Striations/JPG artifacts in the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

alternative cut, saturated colours

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info cut, saturated colours
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The composition is better, but the colors are too strong. Can you restore the original colors? -- King of ♠ 10:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I replaced this file with a new version --Miha (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could probably be processed in several ways, according to taste. But it's a great scene. The JPG seems to be missing its colour profile (sRGB), it would be good to add one. It is possible to get GIMP to do this but I don't use it enough to remember offhand. -- Colin (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I added standard GIMP colour space data. I was not aware of it's importance as I usually post sooc images. --Miha (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Problems CAs at the snow parts. Please check your image. And please no JPEG compression, just 100%. --XRay talk 13:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but for the XRAY --LivioAndronico (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment what do you mean by "CA"? There are no artefacts in the snow, it the mountain wall is quite steep and snow only partially covered the rocks. I did no compression in Gimp, I could share RAW if someone is better at editing. --Miha (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I am confused about the "CA" comment. Also, 100% JPG is not necessary. For Photoshop 11/12 is just fine and the equivalent on Lightroom is 90%. I don't know the optimal setting on GIMP but 100% (no compression) is not necessary for FP. -- Colin (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Agreed. And optimal settings on GIMP are between 97 and 99, depending on level of concern that posterisation might occur -- Thennicke (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beautiful and a better version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLucas 22:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 02:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Candle (Slava celebration).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 08:16:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Candle (Slava celebration)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Candle (Slava celebration). My work. --Mile (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose yet another candle picture --Miha (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good light, good composition. --XRay talk 09:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is good but it lacks something else. Poco2 09:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While we do have lots of candle photos on Commons, this one is pretty well done, and I don't see anything similar already FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a candle light. No wow and per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:1 pano cuiping yangshuo 2016.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2017 at 01:17:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The karst topography of Cuiping village, Yangshuo, Guangxi in 2016
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Chensiyuan - nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I don't love the bushes in the near right corner, but in the context of this huge panorama with great light, they almost don't bear mentioning. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support not very sharp on the right but is very big,so in general is good --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's slightly unsharp and noisy at 100%. So what? It's 124 MP for crying out loud! Lovely scene, beautiful colors. -- King of ♠ 09:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per KoH. Still I wonder why it has to have a size of 80 MP80 MB. Reduzing it to 20 MP would not mean a susbtantion drop of quality (specially considering that the size is influenced by the noise) Poco2 09:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: I assume you meant 80MB? Yes I agree but I guess it doesn't matter too much -- Thennicke (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Right, sorry, yes, I meant 80 MP. I corrected it above. It is not the world but there is no point in doing it like this IMO --Poco2 11:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Breathtaking scenery, and very good timing for the shot. A bit noisy, but it looks to come from a lack of postprocessing and is not distracting at all. Could be improved though if author is willing to get back to the raws. - Benh (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 15:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes, a bit noisy, but: simply "only" wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Laetiporus sulphureus 2017 G01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 16:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dried sulphur polypore on a willow in January
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The harsh flash lighting from above with the shadow is the biggest detriment for me – Lucas 17:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Interesting to look at and well-composed. The lighting is OK, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm just not a fan of the lighting... The foreground is harsh and the background has a very vivid shadow that to me makes it feel like it was taken with a pop up flash... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 19:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 20:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose lighting -- Thennicke (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support For me is perfect,absolutely i don't understand where is the problem! For this kind of pics is sure very good --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting is indeed not good, those strong shadows just don't help a natural shot Poco2 09:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Babylonia spirata 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 16:26:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shell of a Spiral Babylon, Babylonia spirata

Cloudy Trolltindene[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 16:15:40 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Trolltindene mountains revealing from the clouds in Romsdalen, Norway. Trollveggen is the highest vertical cliff in Europe. Created, uploaded, nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ximonic (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 20:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Lovely, more great work from you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I whish the single frames were somewhat larger but the idea is very interesting and well executed. --Code (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Agree with Code, too small if we consider that this nomination is equal to 3 x FPs. It also looks a bit oversaturated to me. Poco2 09:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but I would switch the order of the first two. I know you're trying to tell a story here, but I think it's more important to show the chronological order of what actually happened rather than how you wish it happened. -- King of ♠ 09:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ximonic, please add a FP category. – Lucas 17:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Code. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2017 E-papieros mod 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 13:31:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Electronic cigarette: power supply Wismec Reuleaux RX 2/3 and vaporizer SvoëMesto Kayfun V4
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm in favor of turning it to be vertical so the display can be easily read. Which would also require removing the drop shadows and creating a mask for a pure white background. I can do it, but I'll give Jacek Halicki a chance to do it himself. – Lucas 17:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Lucas: I think it's a bad idea. Vertical photo will look unnatural due to the line of the fluid level in an atomiser. Besides in Wikipedia look better horizontal photos. As for the background is I do not like pictures of the cleared background, IMO look unnatural, in practice such a background does not exist. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm not convinced about the orientation, would have preferred to have the top higher than the body. Furthermore the subject itself is not wowing to me Poco2 09:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The orientation and presentation fails to inspire me at all. Wrt Lucas point, I don't favour such photoshopping as extracting an image with a mask. It nearly always looks fake and is hard to do without tell-tale edges. Better to learn how to shoot an object with a white background in the first place. -- Colin (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of orientation and general lack of wow. I would rather consider this as VI --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:San Stanislao dei Polacchi (Rome) - Ceiling.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 12:54:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

San Stanislao dei Polacchi (Rome) - Ceiling

File:Flehmendes Pferd 32 c.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 12:32:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Umschreibung by Olafur Eliasson, Munich, December 2016 -02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 12:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Umschreibung" is an art installation by Olafur Eliasson in Munich

File:ARD-Hauptstadtstudio, Berlin-Mitte, Fassade, 170117, ako.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:52:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Facade of ARD-Hauptstadtstudio in Berlin-Mitte.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Facade of ARD-Hauptstadtstudio in Berlin-Mitte. ARD-Hauptstadtstudio is a television studio in Berlin operated jointly by the members of the federal broadcasting network ARD. All by me -- Code (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Code (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm bothered by the slight curvature of the lines. Otherwise great shot. – Lucas 17:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lucasbosch: Really? That's interesting. I thought on the contrary that the curvature was compositionally lifting the picture above FP treshold. --Code (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Code: I see what you mean, but IMO unless the actual building is curved, the image should either have drastically curved lines for effect or have perfectly straight lines. I'll see what others say about it. – Lucas 18:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lucasbosch: Ehm... the buliding actually is curved. --Code (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Code: thanks, I wasn't aware of that. – Lucas 18:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm a big fan of repeating patterns and simplicity and you have a great eye for both. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above discussion, the curved lines are there for a reason. – Lucas 18:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 20:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colors; the geometric forms in this picture look so perfect. The blue reminds me of this picture posted a few days ago. WClarke (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral makes no wow --Miha (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Agree with Miha. We have better compos for this kind of shots Poco2 09:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 09:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Pfarrkirche Going, 160623, ako.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of the roman-catholic parish church in Going am Wilden Kaiser (Tyrol, Austria).
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Interior of the roman-catholic parish church in Going am Wilden Kaiser (Tyrol, Austria). All by me -- Code (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Code (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is one of two beautiful interiors of parish churches you recently nominated to QIC. The near corners are unsharp, so you might consider a crop if it doesn't damage the composition, but otherwise, it's great. (Aside: I really like the fresco in the dome; do you have another picture that includes the whole thing and/or do you know who painted it?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 09:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent photo and sharp from left to right. Wrt Ikan's comment, the only bit "unsharp" are the corners of the nearby pews, which are out-of-focus. That's to be expected and in no way harms the composition and square framing. I'm really not sure why one would expect or need them to be in in focus. Are we going to start focus stacking church interiors now too? Please, let's accept reality a little. Having some parts out-of-focus is an indication they are not important and the eye is led elsewhere. -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 20:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Benh (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A lot in this photograph to take in. Great quality. WClarke (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I understand that the light conditions are challenging here but some important areas of the pictures are too dark Poco2 09:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Met rijp bedekt eikenblad (Quercus) 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2017 at 06:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oak (Quercus) leaf covered with hoarfrost.

File:The Love of Paris and Helen by Jacques-Louis David.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2017 at 10:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Love of Paris and Helen by Jacques-Louis David.jpg
  • Has frame; so {{Art photo}} if needed. Jee 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
✓ DoneVilly Fink Isaksen, and thanks Jee --LivioAndronico (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry fill in the data in Template:Artwork. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Villy Fink Isaksen, hope OK, now. Jee 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
THX --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 19:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I don't understand the frame crop, either you show it enterely or you don't, but just a portion is not a goot solution IMHO Poco2 09:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, although I suppose more of the frame wouldn't hurt. Daniel Case (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Glardon Vallorbe LA2442-0 140 mm Swiss cut 0 6-piece needle file set.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2017 at 09:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Needle file set
  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects#Tools
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Swiss made needle file set. All by Lucas.
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLucas 09:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - More great work! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know this is just a b&w image, but can you restore the EXIF information and colour profile please. Perhaps a stage in your stacking workflow is removing the EXIF data. It is possible to copy EXIF from one file (tiff, jpg, etc) to another using EXIFTOOL. Btw, if these are thin files, why is focus stacking necessary? And how would a 20mm increment help -- surely they are less than 20mm thick? Also, information about stacking and stitching is best put on the file description page, and there are templates to help with this. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Colin: ✓ Done 1. I restored the EXIF as you wished. Which is a bit important as this image is not grayscale, it does contain color. 2. Focus stacking was necessary because at f/8, the best aperture of my lens, the DOF wasn't large enough. The 20 mm increments are from left to right in the image, not in depth, I moved the camera along the files to get more resolution. I added that info to the description texts.– Lucas 13:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 20:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 06:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A file of files ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great Poco2 09:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 11:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Bombus soroeensis - Jasione montana - Tallinn.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 18:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Broken-belted bumblebee
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Broken-belted bumblebee on the sheep's bit scabious. All by Ivar (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ivar (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bee looks good and sharp as does a good part of the flower. I like the other little bug under the flower. lNeverCry 01:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose This image feels a bit too normal to me. I have some of such images in my own collection, not with pollen but they look very similar. Going through the FP category, there are some images with bigger, more visible pollen than this one, and in terms of visual impact / lighting this one is a bit boring and flat, IMO it doesn't stack up with the majority of the other FPs of bees. – Lucas 09:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 06:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Haltern am See, Stausee, Anleger -- 2016 -- 2859.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 16:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chain of the jetty at the Halterner Stausee (at evening), Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Thanks for your review, but there is no paddle. --XRay talk 09:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it's a typo - I meant puddle not paddle :) And I know it is lake and not a puddle, but it looks a bit like chain going into a puddle in some rundown street. Lightning is good, but the composition is boring - picture lacks wow effect. --Miha (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a pretty picture, but not enough wow factor for a FP IMO. – Lucas 22:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Nutria (Myocastor coypus) in a partially frozen river Ljubljanica.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 15:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nutria (Myocastor coypus)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order : Rodentia (Rodents)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Nutria (Myocastor coypus). My shot. -- Mile (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Mild Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - For nutria pictures, I think File:Biberratte - Nutria - coypu - Myocastor coypus - ragondin - castor des marais - Mönchbruch - November 24th 2013 - 02.jpg has a better composition, though I don't love that the nutria is eating bread in that picture. This one does have a larger image of a nutria, though, and we see both its front and back paws, but its eyes aren't fully open. But my real problem with this photo is the very unsharp ice at the near right corner, which I find just too distracting at full screen and even at thumbnail size. In order to fully crop it out, some pretty aggressive cuts on both the bottom and right would be needed, and then other sides might need to be cropped for balance. I'd like to see the result and would reconsider in that case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, but DoF small. --XRay talk 06:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan, I don't like the ice there. A shame ... without it the pose, and the expression on his face, is enough to carry it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I agree with Ikan, don't you have other shots without distracting elements in the foreground? The quality of the nutria is though very good Poco2 09:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Miha (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan – Lucas 14:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Sandvikens AIK vs Västerås SK 2015-03-14 04.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 10:49:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Swedish bandy championship final game of 2015.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sandviken player Niklas Gälman defense against Hammarby players in the Swedish bandy championship final game of 2015. I like this image since it shows the beauty of Bandy. Bandy is all about speed and movement. Unlike (ice) hockey bandy is non-contact sport and played on a rectangle of ice at the same size as a football field (allowing the players to build up very high speed before receiving a pass, making it difficult to defenders). Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The focus is on the guy with his back to us, rather than on the ball or on the player facing us who is about to hit the ball. So my eye keeps getting drawn to someone's back. Other than that, it's not a bad scene. -- Colin (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Colin. lNeverCry 01:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps being from North America, I am more used to hockey photography in the sports section, and thus I'm not taken aback (ahem) by seeing the backside of a single goalie in the foreground in a picture of men in uniforms playing a puck on ice with sticks. And this group has a nice symmetry to it.

    I would, however, consider the picture improved if some of the crowd at the top were cropped out to better emphasize that symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see nothing featurable in this photograph, sorry. Going through the relevant FP category, this image does not look like it belongs there. If this photo depicts a unique playing situation or something like that, then it would be a bit different. For example, you describe that Bandy is a fast sport, but the image doesn't show that very well. The dull lighting, the composition that includes too much background for my taste and IMO bad choice for focus on his back is working against it as well. – Lucas 21:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Mohsen Makhmalbaf at Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre 2011.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2017 at 02:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mohsen Makhmalbaf at Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre 2011

File:Castillo de Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, España, 2017-01-04, DD 41-46 PAN.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 19:24:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Castle of Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, Spain.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View of the Castle of Zafra, Campillo de Dueñas, Guadalajara, Spain. The castle was built in the late 12th or early 13th centuries on a sandstone outcrop and stands on the site of a former Visigothic and Moorish fortification that fell into Christian hands in 1129. It had considerable strategic importance as a virtually impregnable defensive work on the border between Christian and Muslim-ruled territory. The castle was never conquered and was successfully defended against the King of Castile in the 13th century. The successful completion of the Reconquista at the end of the 15th century ended its military significance. Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent image size, DoF and quality, hight EV, nice composition. --The Photographer 19:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • only Symbol support vote.svg week support <spam> because the resolution can be a bit higher ha, ha, ha ...  ;-)</spam> --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - LOL, Alchemist! I don't think you'll get any complaints about the sky or unsharpness with this one. It's just a pleasure to look at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment stunning image, but the bushes on the bottom right of the image are significantly more blurred than the ones on the lower left. Are they out of the DOF? I made a note in the image. --Lucasbosch 22:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • One of the source pictures probably suffers from shaking blur (the seam can be seen). - Benh (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 02:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 04:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ---Pudelek (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing view - Benh (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose as per discussion above, one or more of the source files are more blurred than the others, and the seamline between sharp and blurred images is visible. See image notes for an example of a blurred spot. I'm jealous of your 5DS R though. --Lucasbosch 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is that big of an issue on such a large picture though and probably that most wouldn't see even on a moderate large print. The blurred area doesn't cover parts of much interest. - Benh (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • And depending on what kind of shots you do, you really needn't be jealous of the 5DS. As it's been discussed, If you are a macro, or still object guy, it won't bring you any much advantage over any other FF or APS-C given sensor of same generation. - Benh (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Benh: 1. I would love to support this image, but the different levels of sharpness and visible seamline because of it are bothering me. Would this image be of less resolution then it might no be visible even at 100%, but given the resolution, these shortfalls are visible. 2. I haven't followed these discussions. I'd love to have more resolution available for my studio shots, just for the sake of seeing more details, so I'm jealous. --Lucasbosch 12:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Lucasbosch, I agree a high-resolution sensor has an advantage for single-shot photos such as your studio. We try to avoid penalising photographers for uploading full-resolution photos or huge stitches like this. Try the 50% downsize I link below. That's still 28MP and very sharp. If you'd support that then there is no reason to not support this. Opposing over 100%-size pixel peeping of a >100MP image just encourages folk to downsize prior to upload, and then we lose detail that can never be retrieved. As I'm fond of saying, if your monitor is a standard 100DPI, then this image is over 4 metres wide, and you'd probably view it from a couple of metres distance at least, rather than normal monitor distance. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Thanks for your thorough explanation, I strike my oppose. I would welcome allowing/encouraging photographers to upload downsampled images instead of full sized ones like this, to hide flaws better and avoid pixel peepers like me. In fact I would have downsampled this in secret if I were in the same situation, as the resolution is plenty even downsampled. But I understand that having sharp parts of the image is considered more desirable for the Commons project than having less pixels but with the whole frame being perfect. --Lucasbosch 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Lucasbosch, if the software can downsize on-the-fly then why downsize on upload? Actually, for huge stitches most photographers already downsize a bit to ensure the detail is sharp, which it is for most of this image. I don't see the point in uploading full size if it is soft/blurry all over, and for big stitches there is no value in making people download a big file that is not sharp. When we get folk uploading 6MP landscapes that pass FP, it isn't really fair to to penalise others who don't downsize. -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: You say yourself that some people already downsize so others don't have do download a panorma that isn't sharp corner to corner. I don't think this image is any different, albeit being much more resolution. My opinion is that such a panorama should have equal sharpness over the full frame, and not rely on downsampling to achieve this. If there is a soft part, downsample until everything is constistent and thus the seamlines become invisible. I find a 100MP image which is soft on some spots and sharp on others kind of more wonky than a pristine 6MP image. I see your point, too, that you throw away detail on parts of the image in the process. So I wouldn't want to penalize him for not downscaling, but the different levels of sharpness which reveal seamlines, and I don't want to see seamlines. I believe in a pixel perfect uploaded file not reliant on downsampling to achieve even sharpness. Even if this requires downsamling before upload. Agree to disagree ;) --Lucasbosch 14:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate you don't want to see the seamlines, and I wish the stitching was better. But you have a choice to examine the image at this level of detail. Nobody forces you to download the full size image and then display it on your screen at 100% while examining it closely. A good review test might be to judge the whole image fullscreen on your monitor, and then to examine for flaws at some intermediate resolution. If you'd support this at 12MP, say, or 24MP, say, then any extra resolution is simply a bonus. I think that unless the image was huge and very soft/noisy all over, then I'd be reluctant to complain about the size being too large. We have a culture here of pixel peeping that harms people's generosity in uploading/creating high-resolution images (vs Flickr where many images don't even fill one's screen). The result is some photographers really do upload 6MP landscapes from their 36Mp cameras and get and expect to get FP. Of course, minor errors only visible at 100% on a large image may be worth pointing out to see if they can be fixed. If you have a high DPI screen, then much of this pixel peeping concern simply disappears. Our standard 100DPI monitors are the equivalent of taking a magnifying glass to a print. -- Colin (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That bottom right is an issue, but given where it is and the image resolution, I think it can get away with it. -- KTC (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is a flawed frame and perhaps the stitching could be improved (IIRC you just use Lightroom - have you tried PtGui with SmartBlend as the blend tool?). But the resolution of 111MP makes this visible at 100%. A reduction (see this link to a 28MP 50% downsize) hides such sharpness problems and the whole image is very sharp indeed. -- Colin (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've uploaded a new version where I cropped the right side a bit to get rid of the area that somehow wasn't as sharp as others. If the result is not satisfying I can offer also this other version with a far wider view. Thank you Benh and Colin for making understandable that images with more resolution are not always comparable with lower ones and users of a camera like 5DS shouldn't be punished for that. It is indeed not as easy as it was with the 5D Mark II to get all images sharp. Poco2 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Colin did most of the lobbying :) And, pardon me if you already knew, but If your pipeline gives you access to the seam mask, it's very easy to edit it and soften the transition from sharp to blurred area. This would give a better result I think, but this take for granted the "common" area between the source pictures is large enough. - Benh (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The new crop doesn't just chop off a bit on the right, but introduces some to the left. I like the road on the left, but this is a different enough picture that I think you should ping all who have voted so far. It isn't like you just removed a dust spot. As for the other one you link, it is far too wide and also has quality issues. There is still an issue with a seam (to the right of the rocks) that could be handled better if, like Benh says, you took control over the join there (or used Smartblend, which I find is often better are placing seams and not crearting blurred seams). -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@The Photographer, Alchemist-hp, Ikan Kekek, King of Hearts: @Johann Jaritz, Tomascastelazo, INeverCry, Martin Falbisoner: @Code, Cayambe, Michielverbeek, Gnosis, Pudelek: @Lucasbosch, KTC, Colin: Dear all and sorry for the disturbance, I just wanted to let you know that I've cropped the image (mainly on the right) to get rid of the blurred are. I'm informing you just in the case that this change would affect your already emitted vote. Poco2 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Poco, I like the second crop the most. Now the main subject is no longer centered, and this is a bit weird IMO (but this still has my support). I don't garantee anything, but just in case, I offer assistance to implement the above mentioned solution. - Benh (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your offer Benh. Will look into it this weekend and probably come back to you then. Poco2 20:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I prefer the crop from the time of original nomination. There's still a visible seam in the new crop, which wouldn't go away unless the you crop much closer to the rock. While now the rock the castle is sitting on is actually centered, the castle itself is now a bit off to much to the side to me. Then again, if the new crop was the only version offered, I would still had supported so I'm certainly not going to object now. -- KTC (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Please go back to v2 and ignore the naysayers. It was The Perfect Composition. KennyOMG (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that this one is "better", however, both are perfect to me, IMHO --The Photographer 11:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 06:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great scenery --Llez (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Great location and image quality. The tree at the bottom, second from the left, is cropped though - which prevents this from being a great photo, IMO. It's almost always possible to try a different location/perspective and avoid such problems. -- Thennicke (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploaded another version with a bit more of image on the right and with no unsharpness (I got rid of the last frame from the panorama and realized that the result was better than the previous one). I don't feel that I've to ping all 27 voters for the new version, but can do it if something believes that is required. Poco2 16:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better comp this way imho (maybe the right could take a bit more but good enough as it is). KennyOMG (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Антена пелистер 2015.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 18:17:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pelister (2, 601 m), highest peak on Baba Mountain, Macedonia
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Шпиц - uploaded by Шпиц - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Two dust spots below the cloud that's at the upper right corner must be removed before this photo could be featured. Chances are, there could be others, so the photo should be edited with a fine-toothed comb. However, once that's completed, I will vote to support. The motif is interesting, but what really makes the composition for me is the complementary snowy-looking cloud pattern. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I will remove the dust spots, but could you please mark the areas on the image? Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done The dust spots have been removed.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the composition with the large white areas and the antenna being so small in the frame doesn't work for me. I feel like much more would have been possible when having been there. – Lucas 14:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - To me, this is a snowscape photo that includes some man-made structures, not a photo that zooms in on those structures like a laser beam. The antenna is small in the frame because it and the other snowy structures are part of the snowscape, which extends to the clouds in the sky, as they look like streaks of snow, too. I find it totally appropriate for the man-made structures to be part of the picture without dominating it, and other details like the footprint track to the center left of the picture help, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, but may be better with f/8 instead of f/14 (improvment of sharpness). --XRay talk 06:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works because of the sky, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Processing is too poor for me and detracts from wow. Midtones should be brighter; as it is, the sky in particular is too dark, even if a polarising filter was used. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Thennicke: The stones seem darker, because they are really darker. The sky is too dark as a result of the atmospheric aberration due to the high elevation (this effect can be also observed in this, this, this, this and this). Of course, you may try mitigate the effect by using a polariser, but the contrast of the blue may not be mitigated.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't have a problem with the stones, I have a problem with the midtones. Yes the sky will be darker at that altitude but not quite that dark. Composition isn't great either, as Lucas and Diego have pointed out. -- Thennicke (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral IMO there is too much sky and the left side is uninteresting, I would have centered the image further to the right and the bottom. Poco2 09:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Matka 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 18:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Boating on Lake Matka, Macedonia

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Basotxerri: and @Martin Falbisoner: take another look please. --The Photographer 17:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Thank you, The Photographer, that was very kind of you to fix the image. However, it still doesn't convince me to support it as FP but I'm willing to abstain. Perhaps others will support it now. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Despite The Photographer's work to improve it there is still a little bit more noise than I'd like. The area on the boat behind the man looks blown as well, something you wouldn't expect in this kind of light. And, frankly, the composition has too many clashing elements for it to work for me even if it were technically perfect. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Composition should be better (more space around, boat at 1:2), filename should be improved --XRay talk 06:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition -- Thennicke (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:1 panorama Dolomites 2009.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the Dolomites, Pordoi, Italy, 2009
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 04:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice Jianhui67 talkcontribs 11:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now - the CAs are too bad --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is a botched cloning stamp job right in the center. Follow the road in the background of the cliff and the two intermingle, the cliff in the foreground dissolves... --Lucasbosch 15:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Thanks for pointing this out. There's a lot of support for this picture. Do you guys think the nomination should be withdrawn? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Serious technical problems. --Ivar (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but not excellent . Too many problems for an excellent vote. Je-str (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until the technical problems are fixed. Huge wow factor though. -- King of ♠ 00:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per King and Ivar. The CA alone is so egregious that I didn't even bother to look at the noted cloning problems. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Under the circumstances, I'd like to withdraw the nomination, but I have a question for everyone: If I withdraw and then Chensiyuan fixes the problems within a couple of days, can the nomination be reopened, since the deadline for voting is January 27? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I would advise you just use the "I withdraw my nomination" tag (search other nomiantions for an example code snippet) which closes the voting and renominate the image (see the rules), which is a cleaner process than making all the users above reevaluate their votes. – Lucas 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Withdrawn. I think Chensiyuan is offline. If the problems with the photo that are noted above are eventually corrected, it could be nominated at a later date. For now, there are other photos I could nominate. Thanks for your votes and your eyes, everyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Osnabrück - Piesberg - Feldbahn 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:42:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rails of the Piesberg quarry railway and bridge, after sunset. The quarry railway (narrow gauge) is operated during summer by an association and the Museum for Industry Culture. Osnabrück, Lower Saxony, Germany
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Basotxerri -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basotxerri (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I really like the peaceful natural scene, the light and the birds. The mood is somewhat spoiled by the plane and its contrail, and that's the only reason I didn't nominate the photo, myself. I think we should accept this as part of "nature" as we humans have made it, but that's a decision each person has to make, and it's really the major element of content in which the innovation of the Impressionists like Monet in "Impression: Aube" deviated from the tradition of idealistic depiction of pure nature for city people that goes back to ancient Rome. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request + Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment a crop of 10-15% of the empty sky, will be better works for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thank you, I think you're absolutely right, it's better with less sky. --Basotxerri (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it works better now. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I won't change my vote, but I consider the new crop unfortunate, because it crops out a higher-flying bird that was flying in the other direction. I think the composition was better and more peaceful with more sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have no problems with standing on the tracks since it is explained in the description that these are museum tracks used only in the summer. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAnd 7...--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unsharp, boring composition --Miha (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition and ligthing, but still missing some wow. Cannot tell you though what I'd have done differently here, maybe getting closer to the rails to strength the perspective and get a higher score there, not sure. Poco2 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Iturrieta - Fagus sylvatica 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 17:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dead trunks and beeches (Fagus sylvatica) on a foggy day in the Iturrieta mountain range. Álava, Basque Country, Spain
  • Thank you for your vote, King of Hearts. The background isn't sharp because there was fog, breaking up and closing again. Of course that could lead that someone could dislike this... --Basotxerri (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Special Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Monochrome was a great idea for this one. Brings out the texture. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just for my curiosity: can I see please the color version too? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please give me a couple of days, I cannot prepare this right now. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 06:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Even the foreground doesn't really look sharp to me. It is harder to appreciate it in B&W but I miss details here. I undestand the choice of B&W in some cases but not sure about a natural landscape. Poco2 09:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Recently I'm experimenting a bit with B&W. In this image I opted for this because these winter colours were quite boring: a bit of green grass, fog, clouds but rotten wood and wooden textures. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Marmora Formation closeup.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 16:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Closeup of marble of the Marmora formation, Marmora and Lake, Ontario, Canada.

*Symbol support vote.svg Support -- СССР (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Definitely a very interesting photo for VI, but no great composition, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesn't look like a FP to me for it being a flat texture, no visual impact. --Lucasbosch 17:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan and Lucas. Perhaps a smaller portion of it might have worked. Texture needs to be more uniform. Daniel Case (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't fully agree with the other opposers; this could have potentially been FP if it was processed properly. Contrast - or rather, the lack of it - is the big issue this image has IMO. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your input. Alternative version uploaded with improved contrast. СССР (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Redeveloped from RAW, improved contrast

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info redeveloped from RAW, improved contrast. СССР (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- СССР (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Same issue as above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Reflection of Parque Cultural Paulista building in Avenida Paulista, Brazil.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 12:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Reflection of Parque Cultural Paulista building in Avenida Paulista, Brazil
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural_phenomena#Reflections
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Inspired in Alvesgaspar minimalist pictures . All by --The Photographer 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support first impression is that someone laid a grid over a regular sky shot. Nicely aligned! --Lucasbosch 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good idea and an awesome result! --Basotxerri (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This grew on me. I like the interaction of the windows and the sky. By the way, I don't consider this photo minimalist in the slightest. If it reflected a cloudless sky, that would be different. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 04:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Only the slightly off tones of some of the windows give it away as not being a gird overlay. And the distorted parts. Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent -- Thennicke (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although it is a bit noisy, I'd indeed apply a tad of denoising here. Poco2 09:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Winter-Regnitz-PC310004.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 12:04:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The river Regnitz between Pettstadt and Bamberg, Bavaria

File:ANZAC Parade from the Australian War Memorial, Canberra ACT.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 09:53:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info ANZAC Parade, Canberra, is a boulevarde that runs between the parliamentary triangle and the Australian War Memorial.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by Thennicke -- Thennicke (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 02:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 02:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 04:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice symmetry. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bidgee (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition but the background is not (due to weather conditions) really sharp. I'd also crop more at the bottom and correct the slight tilt cw Poco2 09:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Poco a poco: Thanks, it's nice when someone leaves constructive feedback. The tilt of the foreground is natural, compare it to the buildings in the background. Maybe the workers should have done a better job at levelling it ;) -- Thennicke (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • P.S. it's 3 km to the buildings in the background, so as you say, some heat haze is unavoidable -- Thennicke (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Poertschach Werzerpromenade Westbucht und Pyramidenkogel 11012017 6006.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2017 at 08:49:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Lake Woerth, the Flower Island and the Pyramidenkogel, Poertschach, Carinthia, Austria
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps you are right. But I better leave it the way it is. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Iridium-1 Launch (32312419215).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 21:38:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Falcon 9 rocket lifts off from Vandenberg AFB SLC-4E with the first ten Iridium NEXT satellites.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by SpaceX - uploaded by Juandedeboca - nominated by Msaynevirta --Msaynevirta (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Juandedeboca (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 04:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Several dust spots need to be removed --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support "Spaceship. Now with Gentle Glide™ applicator ..." Sorry, as an old MST3K fan, I couldn't resist that one. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 04:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Technically good photo with decent composition + great encyclopedic and at least potentially great historic importance = a feature, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support also agree with Uoaei. --Mile (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--LivioAndronico (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolf im Wald 17:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Exposure/midtones should be brighter. I understand that the image was underexposed to capture the rocketry, but the rest should have been lifted in post. It looks unnatural right now - too dark. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree, a bit too dark, still FP to me. Poco2 09:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:F-22 Raptor flies during the AirPower over Hampton Roads Open House at Langley AFB Va., April 24, 2016.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 20:58:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

F-22 Raptor flies over Langley AFB.

File:Sala de Conciertos, Berlín, Alemania, 2016-04-22, DD 22-24 HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 19:12:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Concert hall, Berlin, Germany.


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Kids playing Pallanguli.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Lucasbosch 18:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lucasbosch. If the two girls weren't partially cropped, I might very well consider it featurable, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Ikan. Good idea, but composition isn't FP level. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perhaps a VI or even QI, but otherwise per others. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Regietów Wyżny (Рeґєтiв) - dzwonnica 01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 18:09:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wooden bell tower in Regietów, Poland
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I quite like this composition, but please crop out the stray bit of wood near the near left corner. I'm also wondering what the photo would look like if it were extended a bit further to the right to encompass more trees. I'm guessing that's not possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Unfortunately not, but I cut off to the left --Pudelek (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll live with this photo for a little while before voting, but as I said, I do like it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colors and clouds. -- King of ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per KoH --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Conditional support Nothing like this nice summery scene to grab my attention on a wet and cloudy January day. However ... it would be better if the purple tinging on the clouds could be fixed or somehow ameliorated. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    I think that the purple is not bad... the storm was near --Pudelek (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I really like that wooden bell tower, and the rest of the composition - especially the light and clouds (the purple doesn't bother me - I've seen purple-rimmed clouds with my naked eye) is good enough to satisfy me. I think this photo is special enough to be among the elite. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 04:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose Personally I find the composition too heavily weighted to the left -- Thennicke (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 09:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:2015 Winobluszcz trójklapowy 02.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2017 at 12:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Abstract. -- King of ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Figurative to me. :-) But I like it, too. Instead of calling it abstract, I'd say it has a very dynamic, flowing, satisfying structure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the image doesn't impress me enough. The crop is quite narrow, so there only are so many leaves in frame, instead of a whole side of a house. I can imagine the rest, but I'd like to see it to be more impactful than that. --Lucasbosch 14:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's pretty, but I'm not really sure whether the subject is supposed to be the leaves or the drainpipe (Or is it supposed to be some kind of woodwork? See what I mean ...). Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. lNeverCry 04:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAnd 7... --LivioAndronico (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It doesn't say much to me. Per Daniel, sorry. Poco2 09:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice detail --Miha (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Prague 07-2016 Wenceslas Square img3.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2017 at 20:41:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Prague, Czech Republic. Art Nouveau sculptural composition on the roof of "Grand Hotel Evropa" at Wenceslas Square in the New Town.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A.Savin 20:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 01:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMeiræ 02:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 03:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thennicke (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me, just a very good QI --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Uoaei1. Dull colors don't work well against cloudy sky and the forms by themselves are not enough to overcome this. Daniel Case (talk) 03:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel. -- King of ♠ 04:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Gnosis (talk) 06:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --Lucasbosch 12:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose needs crop and better light (sun) --Mile (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong in both points. --A.Savin 10:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ---Pudelek (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't know the spot but the crop looks fine to me. The light is just dull and the result is IMHO that the images lacks texture. Per Daniel the subjet itself doesn't compensate that. Poco2 08:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Paris-7957a.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 21:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night over Pont Royal and Pavillon de Flores.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by idobi - uploaded by idobi - nominated by Idobi -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Idobi (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning. I love the way the moon appears. Quality could be better especially on the right side but sufficient for FP. -- King of ♠ 23:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 01:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose great composition, vivid colors, excellent mood - if only image quality were better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like composition, perfect moon-clouds situation. Its not so sharp, but saw camera is not the latest model.--Mile (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It either is or is not an FP, based on the results, regardless of what equipment is used. And in this case, I think it's too noisy and unsharp to be one of the greatest night cityscape pictures, although the composition is beautiful. I would welcome any efforts by idobi to address these issues, because I'd love to be able to support this picture, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find it a beautiful picture, but the quality is not great.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose per Famberhorst. Even given that it was a long exposure, we've seen that these images can be less noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Martin Poco2 08:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lez River, Saint-Clément-de-Rivière cf01.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2017 at 09:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lez River, Saint-Clément-de-Rivière, France
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I love it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really a good job --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 04:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All water reflections of trees are beautiful. I think this picture is missing something, like brilliant colors or an outstanding composition, that would set it apart from the others. -- King of ♠ 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info @Ikan Kekek, King of Hearts, Jkadavoor, Michielverbeek, Martin Falbisoner: @Livioandronico2013, INeverCry, Agnes Monkelbaan: I added more saturation. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The colors are nice, but nothing quite worthy of FP in terms of the subject IMHO, it's not so interesting. I would have liked better separation of the trees in front and the background trees, to make it more visually appealing. --Lucasbosch 14:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the contrast beween the dark trees in the foreground and the brighter trees in the background --Llez (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Llez. I also have to say, particularly in response to King, that having looked at more than my share of water-reflection images while creating and populating those categories, this one did make me stop while scrolling through here. What to me works is that the trees sort of suggest a colonnade, and a slightly irregular one at that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Daniel Case, thanks for putting into words what I think a lot of us had probably noticed unconsciously. Christian Ferrer, the slight change in the new edit is fine with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Reguyla (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMeiræ 02:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good job Christian. Quite a nice natural abstract. -- Thennicke (talk) 11:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow is limited but I enjoy the symmetry and composition, along with good quality Poco2 08:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lucasbosch --Miha (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Berdorf (LU), Aesbachtal -- 2015 -- 4550.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:46:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Plants in Aesbachtal near Berdorf, Luxembourg
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by XRay -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 19:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Unsharp foreground on the left is slightly distracting to me and might be cropped out, but I don't know what that would do to the composition. And the composition is the main reason I support this picture. It's a kind of lovely miniature landscape, with the cobwebs between the plants accentuating their formal relationship in the picture frame. It's best viewed at full screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jee 04:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm too distracted by all the plants on the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel Case, a tighter crop would to accentuate the main subject would be nice.--Lucasbosch 14:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I'll crop out a part of the bottom within the next days. --XRay talk 19:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Daniel Case. Too many random plants that are in focus distract the viewer. -- King of ♠ 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others an no wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed @Daniel Case, Lucasbosch, King of Hearts, Uoaei1: Crop is now improved. Hopefully it's better now. Thanks for your advice. --XRay talk 16:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, still doesn't work for me. There are a lot of in-focus plants on the ground, so I don't think there's any way to fix it by cropping. -- King of ♠ 01:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is the first time I realized that you're objecting not to out-of-focus plants but to in-focus plants! You're considering this a macro of the two plants, not as a miniature landscape. I don't think in a landscape you'd normally want everything but 2 large trees to be a blur, would you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose I like the image but I'm not wowed. The colours don't "pop" enough - everything seems too dull. Probably changeable with different processing though. -- Thennicke (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Caye Caulker Belize aerial (20688990128).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 19:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by dronepicr on Flickr - uploaded by User:Dronepicr - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I think this is an outstanding drone picture. My only hesitation in nominating it is that I hope people don't vote against it because the angle of the photo makes the ground diagonal, instead of straight, but I nominate it, anyway, to see what you all think. P.S. I didn't see a category for drone or aerial pictures; if you know of a good subcategory to add to the "Category" line, please feel free to add it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 21:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No, I find the ground fine; as long as the horizon is level, which it appears to be. Great find too! Really lots of wow, and for a drone pic image quality is ok, but could be better -- Thennicke (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I really should involve myself with Photo Challenge more, but I wish there was some "QI" barrier to the nominations or something - unfortunately some of the winners are shocking from a photographic perspective -- Thennicke (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that's because the judges have to work with the submissions they get. When they get higher-quality submissions, the results improve. Quite a few FPs have been among the top 3 results in photo challenges over the years. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just not enough wow for me. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • You will have to rework the colors here, think blue is +, green is missing. Some saturation maybe. --Mile (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the colors and composition. -- King of ♠ 04:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, I struggle to decide what the subject is --Lucasbosch 14:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - No argument on "no wow", but to me, anyway, the subject seems obvious: the bright area smack dab in the center of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: The file name is, mainly, "Caye Caulker Belize", which describes the islands, so already the file name is not optimal/confusing if the white thing is the main subject. Also the white thing seems to be only captured in part, there is a missing part on the bottom left, confirmed by satellite images. --Lucasbosch 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for expounding on your point of view. I don't share it, but I understand it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMeiræ 02:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It needs a tilt and perspective correction. Poco2 08:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    I doubt User:Dronepicr is monitoring this, so I don't think any edits will be forthcoming from him/her. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Talleitspitze, Ötztaler Alpen.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 13:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Talleitspitze, Ötztal Alps.jpg

File:Moscow ParkKulturyR vestibule 04-2016.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2017 at 07:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moscow, Russia: entrance pavilion of Park Kultury (Red Line) metro station, built in 1935
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Russia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by A.Savin --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A.Savin 07:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I love the colors and enjoy the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 08:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I just can't keep my eyes off the power lines. The left crop is also a little distracting. -- King of ♠ 09:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Power lines. Yann (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, per King of Hearts. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not enough wow for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cables in foreground and lamppost to the left leans distractingly much. Main subject itself is quite nicely lit, but the overall composition does not convince me, sorry -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Very weak support I have faced this same dilemma so many times myself ... great angle but for the wires. And so many times I've sighed and put the camera down. So молодец for trying where I usually give up. And for doing your best to make them less distracting instead of cheating entirely and cloning them out. Daniel Case (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Per the others, sorry -- Thennicke (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The curves in the photograph are great, even if the power lines distract from it some. WClarke (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Natural nude tree.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 20:04:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Please tell us why you think this photo should be featured. I'd like to have your thoughts on that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I could tell you it is a study on texture and volume, or that the forms on these trees are interesting, or that I and some others have a dirty mind... ;) Please see #REDIRECT[[1]] and #REDIRECT[[2]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reject. Charles (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, it was clear for me after a split second, why you nominated this, Tomas. Hahaha. Well spotted. A brilliantly illuminated trunk, nice texture and shape. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me. File:Enterolobium cyclocarpum 01.jpg has much greater visual impact. I would support that. lNeverCry 02:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to explore some suitable categories. Jee 04:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, nothing featurable here. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - So ultimately, I think this is a moderately funny joke, since it was explained to me, but the composition doesn't really add up for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Miha (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Russian chapel at Fort Ross (2016).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2017 at 07:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lNeverCry 08:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Good shot of interesting stuff. I would decrease sky noise a bit, and put into description is it active or a museum. --Mile (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I slept on this photo, and my verdict is that it's beautiful. Decreasing the sky noise would be fine, but it's a very fine grain that doesn't bother me at all. I really like the texture of the wooden chapel and fences. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good image but the shadowed fence make it not outstanding. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose per Christian. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - For what it's worth, I like the alternation of light and shadow and think it contributes to the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually agree. The main subject is literally in the "spotlight" this way. I'm not sure whether it would have resulted in a better outcome had I waited for afternoon sunlight to also shine on the palisades. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Delicate light and colours on the main subject and very balanced composition. I do not mind the fence in shadow. Sky could be selectively de-noised, but it is really only noticeable if you pixel peep. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The shade is not so prominent in a large view. Jee 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 06:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would say edu. value as first here.--Mile (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nicely done -- Thennicke (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well composed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Reguyla (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)



Timetable (day 5 after nomination)[edit]

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

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

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

Closing a featured picture promotion request[edit]

The bot[edit]

Note that the description below is for manual closure, this is mostly not needed anymore as there exists a bot (FPCBot) that counts the votes and handles the process below (except to add categories on the file page, 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/January 2017), 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/January 2017.
  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.