This is a Featured picture. Click here for more information.

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2019

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

File:Lucy Arbell in Massenet's Thérèse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2019 at 19:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lucy Arbell in Massenet's Thérèse
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Unknown artist - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - That's really good. Talk about why you removed the things you did when restoring. Did you restore anything or just remove things? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: A few scratches, the border outside, some specks. As for what I removed: Stamps are secondary additions, not part of the actual artwork. They're essentially minor vandalism to prevent it being stolen or help the library file it, not part of the intent of the image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing special --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is nice. I like your restorations of opera stuff. Abzeronow (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really enjoy your restoration work - it's always of the highest quality. Cmao20 (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm not really interested in opera, so I'm not really "wowed", sorry. --BoothSift 02:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:White Mountain plan.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2019 at 16:54:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White Mountain battle plan
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question This says 1661. File info says 1662. Which is correct? Matthäus Merian died in 1650. How can this be his work? Seven Pandas (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Good question. I don't know the answer, just following the file info. The link to the original source is dead, sadly. I suppose it could be a reproduction made after the original artist died.--Peulle (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Other source - https://arkivkopia.se/sak/ublu-21526 --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That's great, thanks, I couldn't find it in the German library. :) And indeed, the Swedish source says it's from '35, so I will change that info in the file.--Peulle (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But S.DÉNIEL's version linked above looks better (rectangular frame not cut, paper not folded), if it could be found at the same resolution than this one, which seems to be a copy. Concerning the date, it may be 1635 as mentioned on this source -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You can download a larger file by clicking on the "Ladda ner originalfiler". It is a zip file that can be viewed in a scale not much smaller than this but in way better condition. If you don't have the right program to make a normal jpeg of it, just use the print screen and patch it together in any processing program. Since it is in the collections of a Swedish university, it should be ok to download it to Commons. --Cart (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, can't support this since there is now a better version on Commons. Thanks to S. DÉNIEL for finding it and Basile Morin for fixing and uploading it. --Cart (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes unexpectedly I find the other version of better quality too -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Cart. Yann (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose now per Cart. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Cart. -- Karelj (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cart. --BoothSift 05:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Invalid vote. "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

File:DurgaPuja2018 - Pandal of Jagat Mukherjee Park in Kolkata 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2019 at 21:40:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This photo has been taken during Durga Puja in the year 2018 in Kolkata.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Indrajitdas - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The description should say something about what we're looking at.--Peulle (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interior shot taken with iPhone and no tripod (320 iso when this camera can handle 25). Noisy, probably not a QI -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. --BoothSift 02:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I like the photo, not necessarily enough to support it for FP, but I agree with Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A nice composition but I agree with Ikan and Peulle - I don't really understand what I'm looking at. Cmao20 (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basile – Lucas 15:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To see the complete object just watch this YouTube video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEfgNBskFjQ&feature=youtu.be&t=279 -- EaTcHa 16:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:City Botanic Gardens, Brisbane and Brisbane Skytower under construction in December 2018, 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2019 at 20:21:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

City Botanic Gardens, Brisbane and Brisbane Skytower under construction seen from Kangaroo Point Cliffs Park in December 2018
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan – Lucas 06:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. --BoothSift 06:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Seems reasonably sharp but I think that's the consequence of downsampling. The resolution probably isn't high enough for such an easily repeatable scene. Cmao20 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Chacma baboon (Papio ursinus griseipes) female head 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2019 at 17:02:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chacma baboon (Papio ursinus griseipes) female head
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Charles (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm sorry, I can't support this because the right (viewer's left) side of her head is interfered with in a very distracting way by what I guess are blurred grasses. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, tending to weakish I see what Ikan means, but I think the resolution, detail and expression are enough to feature. Cmao20 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan and I find the dark shadows partly covering the eyes disturbing, with them its hard to see where she's looking. – Lucas 19:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above.--BoothSift 06:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. --El Grafo (talk) 08:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Charles (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Steel tree - with utensils.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2019 at 18:48:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Steel tree - with utensils in National Gallery of Modern Art, Delhi, India
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Eatcha - uploaded by Eatcha - nominated by Piotr Bart -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Cool motif, but Eatcha, could you include the rest of the tree that's unfortunately cut off on the left side? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I am overwriting it with a different Image which has the full tree, I actually have about 5 images of this so-called tree. EATCHA (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- EATCHA (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - OK, I'm sorry, but I'm seeing major quality problems, such as to the right of the tree. The right crop is problematic, but that could be changed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: boring composition with framing issues on the right hand side. Major CAs on the artwork against the sky, visile even in thumbnails. Quite low pixel level detail. – Lucas 20:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Major quality problems are present. --BoothSift 23:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. Again, I would encourage the author to shoot in RAW. A Canon 1500D/2000D is not a bad camera and shouldn't be producing such low pixel-level detail, and I suspect it's a consequence of the camera's own processing (perhaps too strong noise reduction) applied to the JPEGs. Perhaps if the photographer could take control of processing themselves, they could get better results from the camera. Cmao20 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I was biased to support it, it's not even a QI. EATCHA (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    EATCHA The subject has indeed FP potential. If you shoot it again with a more interesting lighting (z.B. golden hour), a more generous crop and with higher quality (this version is tilted, lacks sharpness, has CA and requires perspective correction) it could be a solid FP IMHO --Poco2 11:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    Poco a poco, I am planing to do so, maybe in next 6-7 weeks. EATCHA (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the only supporter other than the nominator has changed to oppose and it is unlikely to gain enough support in the wake of that Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Daniel Case (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Caldera de las Cañadas 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2019 at 06:44:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roques de García, Roque Cinchado, Mount Teide, and Roque Torrotito (from left to right), Tenerife
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Panoramas
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez
    I nominated this picture some months ago, but there were some problems with the sky (banding, colour gradient). I now made a completely new version with another method and I think, these problems are solved. -- Llez (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - There seem to be some dust spots near the top margin. Have a look. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I hope, I found them all --Llez (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - There's still one just above the rock on the right, unless that's a little blotch of darker sky or something. I don't really love the relatively subtle but certainly perceptible darker blotches in the sky. Could you smooth them out? If/when you do, I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I did my very best --Llez (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work, I like the composition a lot and the resolution is excellent. Cmao20 (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose your brush masking is visible: the area around some of the rocks (left most apparent) is visibly darker than it should be. Increase contrast to see these anomalies better, I also placed some notes. – Lucas 17:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - In a lot of ways, this photo is a lot better, but I don't like the top of the sky in the middle-left that much, still. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lucas. --BoothSift 03:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Never before and after I had a sky which caused such problems; no idea anymore, how to handle --Llez (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Magere Brug 2048.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2019 at 21:36:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crossing the Margere Brug, Amsterdam
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by C messier - uploaded by C messier - nominated by C messier -- C messier (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Margere Burg, spanning across river Amstel, is the most famous bridge of Amsterdam. Symbol support vote.svg Support -- C messier (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice symmetry. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not special enough. Dull sky, unappealing light, lack of sharpness, and I find the composition cluttered on both sides -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Basile. --BoothSift 02:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basile. – Lucas 06:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately I agree with Basile. It's a fine QI though. Cmao20 (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --C messier (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:208-AAN-Brest-36356 Invasion of Southern France Brest.jpg, not fetured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2019 at 15:37:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by U.S. Army Signal Corps photograph - uploaded & nominated by S. DÉNIEL. Amazing story, a Russian soldier who participated to the Brest liberation (Brest in France, not Brest in Russia) --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Important VI, but the overexposed sky and unsharpness are bothering me, so I'm unsure about FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the haze of the overexposed sky is too distracting and destroys parts of the subjects. – Lucas 20:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm fine if it goes either direction. --BoothSift 23:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An interesting historical curiosity, I'm sure there's a place for it at FP. Cmao20 (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lucas Seven Pandas (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting archive but technically not good enough. The big blown highlights on top make the picture unpleasant to look at. The quality is also less than average, even for this period. Not an iconic document, just a historical photograph -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. If this were an iconic photo it would be different. But it's not. Daniel Case (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Mary Seacole Statue.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 02:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mary Seacole statue
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sumit Surai - uploaded by Sumit Surai - nominated by Sumit Surai -- Sumit Surai (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sumit Surai (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --BoothSift 04:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Ikan. --BoothSift 23:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Good QI, but in order for this interesting statue in front of interesting plants but a boring building to be an FP, I think it would need something other than gray light. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan – Lucas 08:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan –Granada (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a good picture though. Maybe worth revisiting under better light conditions. Cmao20 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Cmao. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Juvenile black-crowned night heron (22055).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2019 at 04:16:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Juvenile black-crowned night heron in a park in San Francisco


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Chacma baboon (Papio ursinus griseipes) female head.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2019 at 17:19:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chacma baboon (Papio ursinus griseipes) female

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination again! Charles (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Rijksmuseum from Museumplein 2523.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2019 at 17:17:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Rijksmuseum from Museumplein, Amsterdam.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Netherlands
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by C messier -- C messier (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A warm summer afternoon in Museumplein, Amsterdam, with Rijksmuseum visible at the background Symbol support vote.svg Support -- C messier (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull light, washed out colors -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basile. I think it was too early. One June, it was beautiful and still light on the Museumplein at 22:30. So maybe around 21:30 might have worked well in September. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. --BoothSift 03:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basile.--Peulle (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If the main problem are the colors and light that appears dull, I think I can fix it. @Ikan Kekek:, at 21:30 it would be night.

    Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --C messier (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Chelmsford Cathedral Chancel Ceiling, Essex, UK - Diliff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2019 at 20:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The chancel ceiling of Chelmsford Cathedral in Essex, England.
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poco pointed something out that I missed at first. --BoothSift 23:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 07:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Charles (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No fan of the crop everywhere / angle, the quality is of course top, though --Poco2 14:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poco worded my feelings well – Lucas 15:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Poco. --C messier (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Poco. Yann (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I wonder if everyone's bored of church interiors at the moment. I will try nominating something completely different for a change. Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Castle of Selles-sur-Cher 25.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2019 at 14:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Castle of Selles-sur-Cher, Loir-et-Cher, France
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I don't think the bot will recognize that template. Better to use {{oppose|weak oppose}}. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Daniel und due to the lighting, the object is partially in shadow. It also needs a perspective correction, but nice-to-have in this case. Poco2 18:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, also there are halos around the upper roof elements. – Lucas 21:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm fine with an unsharp roof flag.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessing on sky --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gerifalte Del Sabana 07:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - EATCHA (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cart (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications#France

File:Public Roads of the contiguous United States, from the 2018 TIGER GIS dataset.png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 06:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

USA public roads map
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media/Maps#Maps_of_North_America
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by WClarke - uploaded by WClarke - nominated by WClarke -- wclarke 06:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I generated this high-resolution map from the most recent 2018 TIGER dataset, displaying every single public roads in the contiguous United States with the base map removed. The down-scaled thumbnail of this file doesn't do it justice, and I highly recommend opening it to its full resolution, where you can see a high level of detail (170.8 megapixels!). From far-away it looks like a typical map of the USA, but if you study it closely it reveals the history and expansion of the vast American landscpae. From the dark sections representing the dense metropolitan areas of the East Coast to the wide-open expanses of untouched land in the West, it creates a picture of America's relationship to its land and its settlement patterns, both past and present. I will admit I am not the first person to make a map in this style, but there was not a recent one on Commons in a resolution this high, so I thought it was worth uploading. Hope everyone enjoys the map as much as I have, and supports it for FP. Thanks. -- wclarke 06:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is certainly both a useful and impressive map. However, your census link is no longer working, so please fix the link, and I believe I can imagine what you mean by the "base map": city and state names and boundaries, river and lake names, perhaps railroad lines, etc. But if I, as a literally 47-year map and atlas enthusiast, haven't seen or heard the term "base map" before, it might be useful to give a very brief explanation. I'll note that there is no article about base maps on Wikipedia, and the definition in the Free Dictionary really explains nothing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Peulle (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great work. -- -donald- (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Many areas show a very regular grid pattern. Is this for real, or because the dataset only contains some points, and a straight line has been drawn between them. I wonder if there is a more intelligent way to colour each pixel than using solid black. If each pixel contains only one road then use e.g. mid grey. But if two roads then 10% darker. Three roads 20% darker. Etc. Then it might not deteriorate to a black blob in urban areas, but better show the intensity of the road system at sub-pixel level. Another approach might be to create an even larger image, though you might then want to upload downscaled or tiled versions, for those who can't display huge images on their PC. -- Colin (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The grid is definitely real and its origins go all the way back to the land grants during the time of the Articles of Confederation (see w:Land Ordinance of 1785), before the Constitutional Convention that was charged with tweaking the Articles of Confederation to make them work better and instead substituted the radically different U.S. Constitution. But the square land grants were kept. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    • The grid patterns also originate from the rectangular survey system, which divided property up into uniform squares — in between the properties they would build roads for public use. IMO that is one of the coolest features of the map. Before the rectangular survey system, roads often took very arbitrary paths, which can be seen in the Northeast. It’s also really cool to see how the roads on the map form around rivers, mountains, and other geographic barriers on the map. - wclarke 15:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I would find this much more useful as a vector graphic (SVG) with each road described as a path. That way you could theoretically zoom in all the way up to the smallest road grids. Would this be possible with your technique? As it is the roads look very jaggy and blurry at 100 %. – Lucas 10:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Lucasbosch: I doubt this would be feasible as an SVG — this was generated using over 6 GB of shapefiles from the TIGER dataset, likely way too much data to put in an SVG. Shapefiles are similar to SVGs, as they are a vector file format. To make this map, I had individual files for the roads of every single county and then rendered them on one map. If you want to see them in extreme detail, you can always download the TIGER dataset shapefiles and put in software like ArcGIS or QGIS, it’s really cool. (though I will note that is pretty computationally intensive with that much data, but you have a good amount of RAM and a good CPU & GPU it should work — regardless, you can load smaller sections of the data in a time to look at if technical limitations are a problem) - wclarke 15:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! All those square grids look rather disturbing to me. --Cart (talk) 12:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really interesting Cmao20 (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work. -- Colin (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Imagine this as 10.000 parts puzzle. I would freak out. I dont find this very helpful at all but I respect the big effort, so this get's me neutral here.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. Where I live I can see just how different the population density is on the two sides of Harriman State Park. Of course, it's obvious in retrospect, but the map brings it out like I'd never seen it before. Daniel Case (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment WClarke, after reading Daniel's comment and since you have this huge original, do you think you could make a version(s) of this map in sections too to make it easier to check out just some part of the map? It took me forever to just open this. I think chopping it up in 4, 6, whatever sections, might be enough. Perhaps with a little overlap if you happen to want to check out a part right on a cut. That way the sections can be downloaded as well, which is not always possible with the Zoom viewer. --Cart (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'll rather not imagine it as a puzzle. --BoothSift 23:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More maps! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic_media/Maps#Maps_of_North_America

File:Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 040.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2019 at 10:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interesting dune formations in Sossusvlei, Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Interesting dune formations in Sossusvlei, Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia. All by me, Poco2 10:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 10:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like these kind of structures. --XRay talk 10:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Have you though about convering this to b&w? I did and did it (quick and dirty: b&w, green filter, auto balance), and cropped to what I suggested here. If you try it and tell me you don't like it better I'll gladly change my vote on this one to support. -- KennyOMG (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    I liked your crop indeed, regarding the b&w version, I'd like to offer it as an alternative version, --Poco2 21:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. I think there may be a small bit of vignetting in the top right corner though. Cmao20 (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral excessive nr that has removed any sand texture on the dunes --Wilfredor (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
    Wilfredor: I've applied no noise reduction, what you see is what I saw. Poco2 21:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @XRay, Cmao20, ArionEstar, Tournasol7: also letting you know, there's a new version --Poco2 21:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - A bit of noise in the shadows, but a striking image and IMO an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Don't love the colors. -- King of ♠ 01:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this, the B&W looks more like my bed this morning, I like to see that it's sand. --Cart (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colors, not everything needs a grayscale conversion. – Lucas 15:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm OK with this just as much. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ermell (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Two very different images derived from one exposure, each a great picture in its own right. I have a slight preference for the B&W version, though. --El Grafo (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but alt is even better. Yann (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this. --BoothSift 00:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Cart. --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question How large were the dunes? ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 07:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    GerifalteDelSabana, you can get a feeling with help of this image (see in the middle) Poco2 14:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Alt[edit]

Interesting dune formations in Sossusvlei, Namib-Naukluft National Park, Namibia.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Offering an alternative version in black and white --Poco2 21:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 21:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Whatever. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would have done it with deeper blacks but stellar nonetheless! One of the best original pics I've seen on Commons. -- KennyOMG (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also good, although (sorry to upset the apple cart) I have a slight preference for the colour version. Cmao20 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A textbook example of an image that benefits from B&W conversion. -- King of ♠ 01:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For this one is good too. Black-and-white improves the structures. --XRay talk 05:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the original colors too much – Lucas 14:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry no. B&W does not add IMO. The colored version is better--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is best. --Yann (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In grayscale, the sand almost looks like skin. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Lucas. --Cart (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support prefer this one. --El Grafo (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Invalid vote. "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural
The chosen alternative is: File:Sossusvlei, Namibia, 2018-08-06, DD 040.jpg

File:The Pano Dutch Landscape.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2019 at 04:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A landscape panorama taken in the Netherlands.
@Basile Morin: I don't understand, why is it too warm? I think this was what Alfred was going for. --BoothSift 04:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
All the colors, included the blue, are yellowish. It looks like an old postal card -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Overexposed with a huge lens flare on the right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The mill propeller is cut, and the white balance should be fixed -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others – Lucas 11:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I wouldn't say it was over-exposed but it is certainly over-processed with some filter and boosted saturation. Posterisation. Also we really should have description of what we are seeing: "Dutch landscape" isn't enough. -- Colin (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. A pretty panorama but there's a number of technical flaws here. Cmao20 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --BoothSift 00:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Male wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) strutting.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2019 at 00:08:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Male wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) strutting
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Boothsift, please don't use "weak" or "stong" templates since the FPC Bot can't read them. Use the piping instead. I have fixed this for you. --Cart (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter: Oops I forgot, my bad. Anyways, thank you. --BoothSift 22:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Phasianidae_(Grouse,_Partridges,_Pheasants,_Quail,_Turkeys)

File:Theodor-Heuss-Brücke, 1902231957, ako.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 21:16:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Theodor-Heuss-Brücke, 1902231957, ako.jpg
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Code, nominated by Yann (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This was withdrawn by Code, but it deserves the star. -- Yann (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. The Nike logo lighttrail working in unison with the bridge to direct attention to the shoreline brings this over the top. Even the stones are pretty ... – Lucas 21:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No further comment.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Why not? --BoothSift 23:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support A potential candidate for the Picture of the Year. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 01:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although some parts are overexposed --Llez (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cart (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Llez, and I suppose I'm not as happy about the rocks in the near foreground as some of you, but still a nice FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 08:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd have preferred it a stop darker but that's up to Code. It is still a great view. -- Colin (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--El Grafo (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milan Bališin (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Piotr Bart (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice and great. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing more to say here. Lovely work. Cmao20 (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Pile-on support Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you very much for the nomination, Yann. --Code (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PierreSelim (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support stunning. Shame that the plane got into frame, would've been better without imho. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 06:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Alsheim, Germany (Unsplash).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2019 at 15:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Alsheim, Germany

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 20:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:The Hooker Track.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2019 at 04:04:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Hooker Track, part of Aoraki/Mt Cook national park
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Paul Stewart - uploaded and nominated by Boothsift -- BoothSift 04:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator -- BoothSift 04:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose insufficient quality: almost nothing is sharp, and many areas are blurred more than others. There are many more problems, please take more care examining pictures you want to nominate. – Lucas 11:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lucas. Composition is nice, and I like the sky, but even downsampled to 7000px across there's a considerable amount of blur visible. Cmao20 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too contrasted and I don't really like this structure in the middle of this landscape -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination--BoothSift 02:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 13:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Pujari at Chinnamasta Temple-0774.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2019 at 03:59:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pujari at Chinnamasta Temple

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 18:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Vihorlat (v zime) 021.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2019 at 17:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vihorlat v zime počas inverzie
+1 Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Milan Bališin (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 18:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.05.13.-04-Bruehl Rohrhof--Gemeiner Schwefelporling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2019 at 16:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sulphur polypore - Laetiporus sulphureus
  • Invalid vote. "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Daniel.--BoothSift 03:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd expect more for FP, the lighting is so-so and that is not compensated with a crispy sharpness Poco2 18:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What is up with the sky in the background?--Der Angemeldete (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If so as Lucas states: contra.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Now that Der Angemeldete has mentioned it: there seems to be overexposed sky in the background, one spot is pure white, other parts are clipping the blue channel. Looking at pixel data the brightness has been lowered afterwards (or from the in-camera JPG). – Lucas 20:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tozina (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- as per Ikan Kekek EATCHA (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 20:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Fungi

File:Sninský kameň (v zime) 001.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2019 at 17:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Námraza na stromoch, miesto: Sninský kameň (Vihorlatské vrchy)
@Basile Morin: Oh, I see. Thank you--BoothSift 05:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Though note that I voted against that nomination because the composition didn't work for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very atmospheric. Cmao20 (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Milseburg (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 18:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chaotic, not good crop. -- Karelj (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better than the other nom: much more dynamics on the tree tones, and much better at making us feel like we're really there. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Invalid vote. "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd probably pointed a bit more up, but overall FP to me Poco2 18:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the lighting is too boring for me, while the scene itself is stunning. – Lucas 21:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Golden Bosnian Lily (r) 09:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lucas -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Don't know what to say, but I feel it's really pleasing & deserves to be FP -- EATCHA (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 20:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena#Others

File:CANADAMIKE.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2019 at 17:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of a homeless person


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 21:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Sun and Moon Pagodas Guilin HDR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2019 at 18:16:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sun and Moon Pagodas, Shanhu Lake,. HDR composed of three exposures of 1/2, 2, and 8 sec at f/11.
  • The FPC Bot can't read "strong" or "weak" templates, so please use the piping instead or your vote might be missed. I have fixed that for you. --Cart (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Really pretty night pic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportLucas 20:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --BoothSift 23:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The different colours of the reflected light set this apart from the crowd. Cmao20 (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support Great Asian style composition! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and that's seven. :) --Peulle (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice assortment of colors. Maybe the towers are tilted though, slightly leaning to the right -- Basile Morin (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the support all. -- King of ♠ 19:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An improvement over the older one that's now delisted. Daniel Case (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportFrank Schulenburg (talk) 04:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tozina (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 21:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:"A panoramic view of valley of flowers Chamoli, India".jpg 24.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2019 at 18:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Valley of flowers, India
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI didn't sharpened this at all. I found it in that state and just did the exposure. I guess it's a focus problem because if you look on the extrem left side of the panorama, the plants in the foreground are sharp.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say you created the problems. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan and the contrast is too high, the shadows are crushed too far into black. – Lucas 20:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. --BoothSift 23:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, with regret, because of the quality issues. A nice and interesting panorama though. Cmao20 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above and note this is a smart phone photo Seven Pandas (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, blown clouds are apparent even in thumb. Daniel Case (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 11:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

File:David Coulthard Red Bull Donut 20015.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2019 at 00:58:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: [[Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles]]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Nikhil B -- Nikhil B (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nikhil B (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blown highlights and I don't find this powder really magic -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Bad quality. what is the interest of the scene? --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Given the particular angle of the shot, not showing much of the driver, and that this was a show run rather than a real race, the magic isn't really there for me.--Peulle (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a bad photo, but I don't think it's better than most other racing shots. Cmao20 (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Could be better. --BoothSift 01:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What's up with those green-ish looking rectangles around specular highlights? What's up with that yellow glow around the nose and top air intake? Why does the photographer at the left (next to the striped dress) have pink arms but skin-colored hands, and why is the transition between them so sharp? Why does the transition from smoke to shadows in that area go pink → grey → black like that? In general: why are there such sharp borders between yellow/purple/pink/shadow areas and why are they so straight? It's an interesting shot, but something must have gone wrong here during processing. --14:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info El Grafo: What you see and describe is a classic example of when the chromatic aberration settings in for example Lightroom are set to the wrong variables. The program can't make the distinction between actual pink/magenta or green/cyan and the CA version of it. The program overcompensates with these angular grey areas and sometimes even other colors. I wonder if this photo would not be better without any CA compensation at all. The author has probably just used the CA settings out of habit or by default and got all these mishaps in the photo. In cases like this it can be better to just go over the photo manually and replace any small CAs with the replace color tool/brush in say Photoshop instead of using the automatic tool. BTW, fun fact: The rectangles around the highlights that you describe as greenish are actually grey. (check it with a drop tool), but since they are surrounded by magenta, your brain will register them as slightly greenish, which is the Complementary color to magenta. Trick of the eyes. :-) --Cart (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: That's interesting, thanks for the explanation! My first thought was manual editing with a large brush, but I soon realized that the patterns are way too straight for that. I've never experienced this myself, but it's not difficult to imagine a CA removal tool getting confused by this kind of image. (An yeah, there's a reason I wrote "green-ish looking" instead of just "green" ;-p)--El Grafo (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The first version of the photo has none of these mishaps, they must have been made when the photo was brightened. --Cart (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others and the processing errors mentioned by El Grafo – Lucas 20:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 11:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Ground floor of an abandoned building in the Ronet classification yard (DSCF5512).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2019 at 21:26:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abandoned building in Namur
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Industry#Belgium
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info by Trougnouf
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Not sure about this one. It's sharp and high quality, but scenes of abandoned, graffitied buildings like this are hardly uncommon. I think it would need a little bit more compositionally to distinguish it from the crowd. Cmao20 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Where do you live? :) --Trougnouf (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Very funny :) I was trying to say that any large city will inevitably have views similar to this one. That's not to say that urban decay isn't a valid subject for FP, just that I think such a scene would have to have a little something 'extra' about it - maybe something a bit more creative with composition or colour. I do like your picture though, and I understand why you nominated it. Cmao20 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Cmao20, no wow factor. – Lucas 20:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lucasbosch. -- Karelj (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Grafiti rarely wows me. --BoothSift 01:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bayoustarwatch (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Invalid vote. "Editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote". Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It may not make a difference by this point, but I might support it if cropped to be just the central corridor. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment thank you, I've added the crop you suggested as an alternative. --Trougnouf (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternative crop[edit]

Abandoned building in Namur
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sadly makes it less appealing for me as there are fewer things in frame. – Lucas 16:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Better than the original to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unlike Ikan, I still don't find it interesting. --BoothSift 23:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Helsinki's Cathedral.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2019 at 22:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Helsinki Cathedral
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Julie tsarfati - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The people and the steps are not very clear. --BoothSift 23:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Also random-seeming crops left and right. That said, this motif could be featurable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong oppose Insufficient quality. @ArionEstar: this is your 16th nomination that is straight rejected in FPC in one month. All of them failed by consensus with very clear oppose and no one passed since the beginning of March. The best score you got from these nominations was 3 supports only for 6 oppose, which still makes one of the weakest results here. A few ones were {{FPX}}. Now looking at the kind of pictures you propose to the reviewers, almost all of them are taken with smartphones (iPhone X, iPhone XS, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XR, iPhone XS Max, iPhone XS, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone XR, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone8,1, and now iPhone 6s). Several reviewers have already suggested that these cameras don't provide enough details, but you seem not to listen, by continuing to nominate only weak images. Most of us are active here because we like beautiful photography. This is never a pleasure to look at a bad candidate and to have to write a negative statement. The average rate of success in FPC is usually about 50%, not zero. We are very tolerant with failures in general, and many reasons can explain the non-promotion of a picture. But I think here it is really too obvious that you don't provide the necessary effort to scrupulously choose your nominations, and to change your strategy to evolve towards success. I think you should now refrain from nominating new candidates, unless you select them better with reliable reasons to believe they will pass. If you're not sure, Commons:Photography critiques is a section that may help you that way. Pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality. Please read the guidelines -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose please stop nominating these images of weak technical quality. – Lucas 06:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a bad motif but the quality is not good enough for QI, let alone FP.--Peulle (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree it is not FP level because our bar for architecture is high and the VSCO hb2 filter applied to the photo hasn't helped. But this image did win a European Special Award in WLM2018 and did pass QI. Personally, I think it is a good enough image to be widely usable (which is what I think QI should aim for). While the framing could be a bit tidier at the sides, the scene is impressive and the girl in white on the steps catches the eye. QI should appreciate more than just the pixels. All these iPhone photos....perhaps Arion works for Apple? :-). -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Wiki Loves Monuments finalists are clearly not all quality images. After 6 or 8 failed nominations of iPhone pictures here, I think it's time to understand that the quality is not at FP level. Especially after such unambiguous scores. Now that's the 16th... See those stairs : posterized, artifacts, unsharp, poor colors, and the low resolution is not here to counterbalance these flaws. Please find another pool of champions -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh I agree about WLM. I'm just saying that this image has some credentials, so probably wasn't the one to make your point on. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • GerifalteDelSabana if you look at the metadata table on the file description page, the title says "Processed with VSCO with hb2 preset". VSCO is a collection of filters. The people on the steps have that high contrast look you get with too much Lightroom Clarity, but more so with lots of crushed blacks. -- Colin (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Colin that it probably is QI, and it's a useful contribution to the project. But it's not FP level, and I share the view that iPhone photos will generally struggle to make FP. Also we already have this FP of the cathedral which is considerably superior. Cmao20 (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Feels kind-of posterized (looks like the result from turning down the "Clarity" in Lightroom). Also, regarding phone photography, we should probably make a challenge to see who could get a featured image with one haha. They almost never deliver quality images and are usually horrendously posterized. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 03:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Long way away from FP in technical quality. Charles (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 11:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Hughes & Mullins after Cundall & Howlett - Heroes of the Crimean War - Joseph Numa, John Potter, and James Deal of the Coldstream Guards.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2019 at 03:27:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Coldstream Guards in 1856, just after the Crimean War


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:테이블 마운틴 002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2019 at 22:02:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Table Mountain, Cape Town
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by -revi - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 22:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks oversharpened, and also, IMHO, it lacks wow. --C messier (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per C messier. --BoothSift 23:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality, not striking image -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. – Lucas 06:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. --Peulle (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty, but lacking in detail at full-res. Cmao20 (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Long way away from FP in technical quality. Charles (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /– Lucas 11:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Cânion Fortaleza em dia de neblina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2019 at 23:32:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Rafael Nicolaidis - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not much to look at, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan. Fog can be made quite interesting visually, but not here IMHO. – Lucas 11:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not much to look at -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose The image quality is FP level this time, but I'm not quite convinced by the composition. I've seen better foggy pictures. Cmao20 (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too similar to the 18 unsuccessful previous ones. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

-- Basile Morin (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

File:CN Tower, Toronto (IMG20181220074717).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2019 at 23:30:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

CN Tower from Front Street
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Sikander - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 23:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - So now, instead of iPhone pics, you're nominating an Android pic? What about this makes you think it's one of the finest images on Commons? I would disagree, and I predict that like most of your recent nominations, this won't get a single supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan – Lucas 07:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan --Granada (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thank you for the nomination, 😄 ArionEstar 😜, but I have to oppose this because the quality is nowhere near the other amazing Featured pictures on Commons. Cheers! // sikander { talk } 🦖 11:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • N After 17 similar failures and a clear warning two days ago, please completely stop nominating this kind of inappropriate candidates. Your contributions will start to be disruptive soon -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality of this one is actually worse than that of the iPhone shots. Cmao20 (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because low technical quality smartphone photo – Lucas 11:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 14:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Bruggetje in fietspad naar Langweerderwielen. Locatie, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wielen) en omgeving 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2019 at 16:36:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful Oppose Per below--BoothSift 00:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The fact that the bridge is cropped on the right results in an unbalanced composition IMHO Poco2 18:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco, the bridge being exactly on center height makes it look uninteresting too. – Lucas 21:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I may have seen too many small bridges over small brooks like those. Sorry, I'm not impressed.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Der Angemeldete -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It has a ring to it! Tozina (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- EATCHA (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:De Fer Trier 1692.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2019 at 21:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nicolas de Fer, map of Trier and surroundings, 1692.


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /– Lucas 06:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:Pine plank fence 2019 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2019 at 08:41:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pine plank fence
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I find your composition more interesting, although I'm not sure it's quite an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not very interesting. --BoothSift 05:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all for reviews and feedback -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Alternative black and white[edit]

Pine plank fence B&W

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ikan – Lucas 11:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not very interesting. --BoothSift 05:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks to all for reviews and feedback -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Cânion Fortaleza Indescritível e Maravilhoso 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2019 at 13:01:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Andréa Favero - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 13:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, no. The picture is very pretty, but at full-resolution the detail is nowhere near there. I think the processing applied has ruined it really, a Canon SLR should be able to do much better. Cmao20 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because extremely low technical quality similar to the 18 unsuccessful previous nominations. Lucas 13:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • N I suggest we try to block Arion from further nominations if possible, or a similar procedure. I find this is borderline vandalism of this page with low effort nominations despite plenty of oppose votes, clear explanations and multiple warnings. – Lucas 13:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Really Arion, you have been here long enough to know the 2-nom policy. The FPX-ed noms are actually active for 24 hours after tagging unless you withdraw them. --Cart (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Revert to Lucas' FPX now that the other noms are withdrawn. --Cart (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Helsinki University of Technology Main Building, Otaniemi, Espoo (October 2018).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2019 at 10:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Helsinki University of Technology Main Building in Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland in October 2018.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture#Finland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Helsinki University of Technology Main Building by Alvar Aalto in Otaniemi, Espoo. A photograph by me. --Msaynevirta (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too ordinary. I don't see what is supposed to be remarkable in this composition -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basile. Too much looks random in this composition and the large shadow of another building in front and the white coated woman don't help guide the view to the main subject. – Lucas 12:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because as per above comments. Far to be at FP level. Yann (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Aldrin Apollo 11.jpg (delist and replace), not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2019 at 10:46:33
Astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the moon (Current featured) Astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the moon (Replacement)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This image (left) was promoted on 28 May 2005 (Original nomination). We now have a better version (center, replacement) at File:Aldrin Apollo 11 original.jpg. The current featured version may have been modified to add black space above/behind Aldrin. The original unmodified and uncropped version (right) can be found at File:AS11-40-5903 - Buzz Aldrin by Neil Armstrong (full frame).jpg (actual photograph as exposed on the moon by Armstrong). The file description at original exposure also states that A communications antenna mounted on top of the backpack is also cut off in this picture. So the current featured photo is actually an inaccurate depiction of this historic photo. This is my first time participating in a discussion at Commons. So I apologize if created this nom incorrectly.
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace -- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The quality is better, the lack of space at the top is an issue. This should be fixed before. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
+1--Peulle (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Adding empty space would make the photo false. Part of Aldrin's backpack is cut off in the original photo Armstrong took. If that is still more desirable, I can make that happen.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
See File:Aldrin near Module leg.jpg. I have added notes to the current featured picture that shows the issue more clearly.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 12:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the backpack is slightly cut, but the issue remains. See also File:Aldrin Apollo 11 (jha).jpg. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This is how his backpack is supposed to look. See the significant missing piece.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Please keep the nom clean of displayed photos other than the current FP and the proposed replacement. --Cart (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Delist and replace Lucas 13:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist because of – let's call it what it is – digital fakery of a historic image (minor and done in good faith, but nevertheless). As for a replacement, I think I'd prefer File:AS11-40-5903 - Buzz Aldrin by Neil Armstrong (full frame).jpg or something similar that retains the unexposed parts of the film around the image and even the vertical stripes at the left and right. --El Grafo (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per El Grafo. Using the full frame addresses the compositional problems of the cut-off version pretty well, in addition to being the historical photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    • If my opinion matters at all, I have zero objections to this idea. Thanks. Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per El Grafo. Seven Pandas (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Do not replace by the one which seems cut. Agree with Yann and El Grafo. Just Delist or Delist-and-replace by the original -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Do not replace, feature both See Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Apollo 11 Photograph of Buzz Aldrin where I argued strongly that Wiki should feature the Nasa "enhanced" version and others agreed. In the mean time, it seems someone has replaced the Nasa publicity photo on articles with the "original" version. I don't know how long ago that was done, or if there was any discussion about it. Both are useful on Commons. The publicity photo is the one everyone knows, and everyone here on Commons knows that painting in a little more blue sky (or black sky here) is a harmless alteration commonly done. The "original" photo is a mistake, and I continue to think only really worth using in an article on moon conspiracies. I don't see we can't feature both. -- Colin (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Colin. I think he has a point, but I'd like to read what everyone else thinks. Daniel Case (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Do not replace, feature both Thought about this one for a while but I am overall persuaded by Colin's rationale. Cmao20 (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would argue the current FP, as a conspicuously doctored and edited version, perpetuates the conspiracy theories. "Here is the evidence," they will say, "a digitally manipulated version created by NASA." That is the crux of their ridiculous arguments: that NASA somehow created these videos and photos. And we are helping them. Putting one of the originals (especially the original film exposure) as the Featured Picture would end this argument. @Colin: the only issue I see with the version I am advocating is aesthetic and composition. We are sacrificing historical accuracy for sake of Commons quality standards on composition. The current FP is simply a false representation of the historical event. It misrepresents the appearance of Aldrin's backpack. I may be new here but I have been involved in a major overhaul of all Wikipedia articles about Apollo Program for over a year now.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think Commons or Wikipedia have any power to end conspiracy theories, and Commons mission is just to be a high quality repository -- what people use the images for is not our concern. Many famous photographs are edited, or adjusted when making a print. If we consider this purely on composition then the second photo should not be promoted -- it is awful. If we consider it as a faithful photo of the first moon landing, then it is valuable and has high EV. But I argue the publicity photo also has high EV. If the Apollo photograph was altered by a Commoner or not itself famous, then it would have very doubtful EV. -- Colin (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have avoided CANCASSING but a simple post at en:Talk:Apollo 11 alert them to this would demonstrate that consensus there has changed significantly on this issue.Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think the FP process of any project should interfere much with what editors do on articles, beyond alerting those editors to the existence of alternatives to consider or point at a discussion. The en:wp FP discussion is probably more relevant to wp article editors. What our consensus is here, is really not important to that WP uses. -- Colin (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per El Grafo and Ikan. We should not promote such altered historical documentations. These guys were astronauts, not photographers, and that is allowed to show in their photos. --Cart (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Per the comments above. Astronauts are usually not professional photographers. --BoothSift 01:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If that's a thing, Pictogram voting comment.svg do not replace, feature both per comments above. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 06:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is the messiest and most inconclusive request I've seen so far. For another try to make something of this, please keep to simple "Delist" for the old FP or "Feature" for a new FP. --Cart (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Result: 2 delist and replace, 5 delist, 3 do not replace - feature both, 1 do not replace, 0 keep, 1 neutral => inconclusive voting => kept.

File:Phalaenopsis Cultivar White 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2019 at 06:50:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White Phalaenopsis Cultivar
It is the freshly painted wall in my dining room --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Artistic, dramatic and gutsy nom. Something different in the flower department. --Cart (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes it is. Charles (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Cart. Nice to see artistic photos like this - a brilliant idea with the background. Cmao20 (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-Bijay chaurasia (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Peulle (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, very nice composition, interesting light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bayoustarwatch (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--BoothSift 06:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tozina (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Piotr Bart (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco2 20:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support Makes flowers look like fine lingerie. Or at least how fine lingerie aspires to look. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice — Rhododendrites talk |  04:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Piling on. --Yann (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- King of ♠ 02:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 04:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EATCHA (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 29 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants/Asparagales#Family_:_Orchidaceae

File:Common blackbird (Turdus merula mauretanicus) female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2019 at 17:20:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common blackbird (Turdus merula mauretanicus) female


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Ferrocarril Swakopmund-Walvis Bay, Namibia, 2018-08-05, DD 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2019 at 18:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cargo train pulled by a South African Class 33-400 locomotive in the route Swakopmund-Walvis Bay, Namibia.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Still OK for an FP. --Basotxerri (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for notifying. Doesn't affect my support. Cmao20 (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It improved my pain points, but not quite enough, especially in thumbnail sizes. – Lucas 18:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. In thumbnail size it looks better than I thought it would. But still it's hard for me to focus on the main subject. I changed to neutral. For comparison.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Der Angemeldete If you display another photo in the nom, it will be understood as an "Alt" by FPC Bot and it will mess up the closing later. Please only mention other photos, we are quite capable of clicking on them and look at the file. Also please write the whole "neutral" or the Bot will not be able to read the vote. I have fixed it for you. (Yes, the Bot and its shortcomings is a bit frustrating, but we will have to live with it.) Thanks. --Cart (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@W.carter: Alright, thank you for the hint.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers. The train just doesn't stand out enough in the compo. A more radical angle would have been better. Sorry, --Cart (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The train is too small. This photo would be better If shoot close in on the train(in...in...big...big). or On the other side of the railroad tracks showing only the landscape. Bayoustarwatch (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Lest there be any objection to this vote, Bayoustarwatch now has well over 50 edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Gallotia galloti palmae - Los Cancajos 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2019 at 18:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Male of the Western Canaries lizard, Gallotia galloti palmae at Los Cancajos, Breña Baja, La Palma.
Symbol support vote.svg Support Okay, Basile clarified for me. --BoothSift 02:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Large size. Sharp at 4000 pixels large. At this distance, it's normal to have a bit of blurriness in the out of focus area. The settings seems correct to me, and the most captivating part is in the center. Nice close-up -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Blurred LHS is OK for me. Charles (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great use of the rule of thirds. Bayoustarwatch (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Good quality and nice composition, but I do feel the depth of field is a little shallow here. Cmao20 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cmao20.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Poco2 21:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Very weak oppose Looks overprocessed and unnatural around the eyes. Daniel Case (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It has a weirdly-shaped eye, but it doesn't look over-processed to me Daniel. Charles (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The skin around it looks sort of noisy, and there's purple fringing on the reflections. I've seen better in other noms. A shame because I really do like it as a composition. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Reptiles

File:Etangs de Bassies 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2019 at 07:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Étangs de Bassiès in Parc naturel régional des Pyrénées ariégeoises, commune of Auzat, Ariège, France


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Pic Odles Stevia Daunëi Sëlva Ciandepinëi te Gherdëina da Mont de Sëura dinviern.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2019 at 21:19:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Odles Group, the Ncisles mountain, the Stevia mountain, Col dala Pieres peak in the Puez-Geisler Nature Park (UNESCO World Heritage Site), the Ciandepinëi skiing area Dolomites
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Italy
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The foreground is intrusive -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- EATCHA (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--BoothSift 05:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Impressive to me, and I'm OK with the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the sharpness is uneven: the ski slope with the red “tape” at its sides is significantly more blurry in its lower section than the rest. There is a weird green tint and blurryness going on on the left (see notes). Compositionally, I find the foreground hill intrusive as well, but it doesn't obstruct anything important. – Lucas 06:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a shame that at least one of the images used was out of focus. See note. Charles (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose technical issues as mentioned above, but I also think we've seen much better compositions from you. That tiny piece of foreground hill does kind of spoil it for me. I'd like to either see more of it or see what's behind it down in the valley. --El Grafo (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, sorry. --A.Savin 12:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, with regret, because the image is beautiful - but the seam where the unsharp frame joins onto the sharp part of the photo is just too obvious for me. I don't think it's quite at the level of your best. Cmao20 (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Museo Estatal de Historia, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 44-45 HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2019 at 17:51:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Building of the State Historical Museum, Moscow, Russia.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Building of the State Historical Museum, Moscow, Russia. The host of the Russian history museum, located between the Red Square and Manege Square, was built based on Sherwood's neo-Russian design between 1875 and 1881. c/u/n by me, Poco2 17:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 17:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would love to support this but the crop is unfortunate: the left building is cut off in a very unsatisfying way while the tower on the extreme right is included just barely and sticks out like a sore thumb. The center part of the image is FP level for me. – Lucas 19:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not made my mind up on this yet. It's very good quality as usual and I may end up supporting but everything feels a little bit bright to me, and I'm not sure I like the brown sky. Out of your pictures of this building I actually prefer this, although on the one I link to the transition between the sky and the building on the left hand side might need a bit of work. Cmao20 (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - So colorful! I'd like to support, but please see if you can de-noise the near right corner a bit, and please clone out the big dust spot near the top margin, above the middle of the museum. I also think the photo linked by Cmao20 should be an FP, but both could be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cluttered foreground, awkward crops bottom and left, also File:Museo Estatal de Historia, Moscú, Rusia, 2016-10-03, DD 49.jpg is better -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Basile. --BoothSift 05:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basile --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If we all prefer the picture I linked to, I shall nominate it and see how it does. Cmao20 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you Cmao20, I could have improved this image, but it's hard to do so when you find a bunch of opposes within a few hours. So, I guess there is no point in trying to do so. --Poco2 17:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you could have done, that is why I reserved judgment and hadn't voted yet. But I agree, a run of opposition like this tends to make it difficult to build much momentum for support. Cmao20 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Poco2 17:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Sweet gum seed pod in Green-Wood Cemetery (62398).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2019 at 04:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sweet gum seed pod. Background is a mausoleum in Green-Wood Cemetery (New York)
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created/uploaded/nominated by — Rhododendrites talk |  04:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportRhododendrites talk |  04:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- It looks like a decorative item, it's FP for me. --EATCHA (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is distracting. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is included in the composition as to say "Look at my background behind my sharp subject". But this building is just blurry and uninteresting in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it very much, refreshing to see a plant photo without an unrecognizable blur of a background, but some context about the environment instead. The shadows of the branches on the steps provide a nice texture, too. – Lucas 12:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose background Charles (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I see what you were going for here, and the detail on the seed pod is very sharp. But I do share concerns about the background being distracting. I wouldn't mind this as an FP but I don't feel strongly enough to vote either way. Cmao20 (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Yann. The idea is interesting, though (I have way too many unfond memories of stepping on these things barefoot as a kid). Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Yann. --BoothSift 05:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Yann --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Yann --Cart (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nominationRhododendrites talk |  22:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Almsee Nordbucht-4224.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 07:44:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View on Almsee (Upper Austria) from north bay to the south.
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Austria
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by User:Isiwal - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very peaceful and much more intimate than a lot of alpine pictures, because we see the shimmering reflections and swans on the lake and trees next to the lake and see the sides but not the tops of the mountains. I'm guessing some of you might not love the hazy mountainsides, but I think they're worth it for the resplendent light and the mood. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But no sky... Charles (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I looked at it for a little while and I just don't get the big wow from this light. --Peulle (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If you can sell it as a cheesy photo wallpaper, it get's my vote...and because of the colors, and the light and ... so on. Remarkable picture though.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful shot me.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle and Charles. -- Karelj (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think that a sky would have made it better, anyways per Peulle. --BoothSift 23:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - To those of you objecting that there's no sky in this photo: A certain sameness tends to afflict nominations here. Why on Earth does every photo of a landscape have to have a sky in it? Norms exist to be deviated from. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ikan's comment above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice scenery but still lacking something for FP, sorry, --Poco2 10:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flat lighting. -- King of ♠ 19:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik(talk) 09:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not every landscape photo needs the whole package of sky, mountain and water. Sometimes focusing on what's there on eye level is more relaxing. – Lucas 12:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hockei (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EATCHA (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--C messier (talk) 08:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural/Austria

File:SES-10 Launch - world's first reflight of an orbital class rocket (33361035200).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2019 at 21:50:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SES-10 Launch - world's first reflight of an orbital class rocket
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Space exploration
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by SpaceX, uploaded by BugWarp, nominated by Yann (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Historically significant, and the composition is just perfect. -- Yann (talk) 21:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Totally per Yann. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The slight couterclockwise tilt and some dust spots should be fixed.--C messier (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--BoothSift 23:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood use of the rule of thirds Bayoustarwatch (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm sorry, but there are several dust spots on this photo. They should be cleaned before we feature it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe later, but there are a bunch of them. Just look across the sky. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I cleaned them all. I also made a very slight contrast adjustment. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I find the overal exposure a bit dark, the histogram has a sizeable gap in the highlights. BugWarp, does this represent the light of that day faithfully? – Lucas 08:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support for its historical importance, but I've seen better rocket-launch photos with a more interesting composition in the past. Cmao20 (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a ccw tilt (see sea level), with that fixed it is a FP to me but I've to say that the left crop is not the best, --Poco2 20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The spots are gone, but there is now a sliver of white frame on the left. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, due to the tilt correction,...--Poco2 11:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    OOps, fixed. Yann (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Poco2 16:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Thanks for fixing that. I still see at least 4-7 dust spots, depending on which is a blotch or not. One is just to the right of the upper left corner. Another, even fainter, is a bit below and slightly to the right of that. One is almost due left of the nose cone. Another is almost directly to the left of that, just a hair up; there is another diagonally down and to the right of that and two others to the left and slightly up from that one. I realize that these are all quite subtle and you may feel like you're chasing phantoms in the end, but try making another pass over the image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I could only find 2 of what you mentioned. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Dunno, some to the left of the nose cone are pretty obvious on my monitor. They're not so clear I feel impelled to oppose, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I tried, but I can only approximate because I can't see the dust spots at the tiny thumbnail size I have to use to insert the notes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Do what you can. In the meantime, I Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks OK now Charles (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- EATCHA (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Space exploration

File:1580 Lucas Janszoon Waghenaer Carte de l'ouest de la bretagne.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 14:43:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Carte de l'ouest de la Bretagne
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Maps
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lucas Janszoon Waghenaer - uploaded & nominated by S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That's a good quality scan, but not as hig-res as it can be if it would have been made with a plotter or even a good overhead scanner. Number of dpi is downleveled to default 72 like always if you edit something like this in Photoshop. But before that reason one thing caused me to decline here. I simply don't like the fold in the middle and think it should be carefully removed. I know there are people who say that it belongs to the history of the document and the archival tradition of this map, but I believe, since this is a simple reproduction it sould show us mainly it's content in first place. --Der Angemeldete (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Je n’ai pas fait cette retouche volontairement, car elle est difficile et risque plus de corrompre l’image que de la restaurer. Parfois il faut aussi savoir s'abstenir de retoucher (sinon il faut reprendre sur photoshop toutes les craquelures de la Mona-lisa de Vinci). Si vous lisez la description de l’image, vous constaterez que cette carte a plus de 400 ans. Ce que vous devriez voir c’est son état exceptionnel de conservation. Le papier est sain, le tracé est bien visible, l’impression est net et les couleurs sont encore belles. Ce genre de document ne se scanne pas avec n’importe quoi. Je ne vois d’ailleurs pas ce qu’une meilleure définition apporterait puisqu’on voit la trame du papier. Le cartographe est un auteur majeur et son Atlas le premier du genre à être imprimé. Vous noterez qu’il y a des profils en travers du relief de la Bretagne, ce qui est rare. Vous noterez aussi les belles illustrations : A terre on voit les animaux qui font l’objet d’élevages (l’exemple du cheval qui est la spécialité de St-Renan et sa région - on le voit ici orner la région du Léon); en mer les illustrations sont soignées, chimères et bateau. Le cartouche central est finement détaillé et le compas donnant l’échelle particulièrement soigné. C’est une carte marine, donc on y trouve les hauteurs de fonds, les récifs, les îles … Il est certain que si on regarde juste le pli et la définition c’est autre chose. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That was exactly my point. I didn't speak about the conservation status, I spoke about the clarity of information and details. I know better conserved maps than this one and even older ones, but I can't bring them to Commons, cause it's either not allowed to upload them here nor am I able to reproduce them in a quality that would be sufficient to reach the status of a Quality Image. I do not vote for the archiv or library that conservates the original I vote for the reproducement. And in my opinion this could have been better done. It's an impressing map though.--Der Angemeldete (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even if it would be possible to do a higher-resolution scan, what we have here is more than satisfactory for FP. The fold in the middle isn't very distracting for me - I didn't even see it at first glance. Cmao20 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Cmao--BoothSift 00:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High resolution, renown cartographer, excellent conservation state. I particularly enjoy the weird fishes beautifully drawn -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - If someone does a higher-resolution scan that's better, we can promote that in place of this, but for now, we have this, and it's a beautiful map and a nice scan. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The most unusual feature in this, is the drawings of the land silhouettes as seen from a ship. Such drawing were mostly found in pilots' note books until well into the 20th century when chart books of such silhouettes were issued. --Cart (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tozina (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --EATCHA (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--C messier (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media/Maps

File:Tubla sun Frea Val Mezdi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 16:22:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hayloft in the Mittagstal of the Sella group in South Tyrol
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info @Lucasbosch: I't is not the backside of the barn. This is a typical alpine hay shack with only one large door and no windows --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unbalanced compo, there is also too much competition for the viewer's attention between the hut and the mountain. --Cart (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not really wowed. Sorry --BoothSift 23:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lucas --El Grafo (talk) 12:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I like the idea of this composition, but I think it would have been better if you had backed up just a little further from the hut. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose per Cart and Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bayoustarwatch (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--C messier (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Vexilographic maps of Pontic littoral by end of 13th-17th century.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2019 at 18:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vexilographic maps of Pontic littoral by end of 13th-17th century (reconstruction)
  • Lucas's point is that because of its encyclopedic value, it would be a good candidate for a nomination for Featured Picture on a Wikipedia. He's asking what makes it a good nominee for Featured Picture on Wikimedia Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ^Exactly. Please consider nominating this at the Wikipedia FPC using your throrough explanation. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose here, it doesn't fit. – Lucas 20:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hm, I found other SVG-maps, ex. They are very similar in quality and have FPC status. Work done at a high level. This map is published in three great gift monographs. High art - „here, it doesn't fit“? Maybe I don’t understand something important in the nomination rules and in the VG-level? — Niklitov (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - The map looks interesting, but Russian is a language I don't know how to read, so I really can't evaluate this map fairly. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, Ikan Kekek!: add Key in English (and note of Gadget-ImageAnnotator). On the map are ancient cities in Latin. Ok?) — Niklitov (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Much appreciated, but the key doesn't cover all the icons on the map. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, Ikan Kekek: about the icons on the map: this is images (16 Coats of arms of cities) from The 14th-century map by Giovanni da Carignano. Please find the icons on the map into English with Gadget-ImageAnnotator. — Niklitov (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks; I understand a lot better, but please walk me through the coats of arms I see for Sinop: First, we have the Janjarid Emirate from 1320-21 and 1327, and again under a different coat of arms in 1423. In 1428, what is the flag with the Jewish star and crescent? Then we get the Genoans. After that is a trifurcated white flag; whose flag is that? Then we have a red flag with a yellow rectangle in the center - who is that? Then we have the Ottomans, followed by a red flag. Who's the red flag? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • О! Sorry, Ikan Kekek! Times are years of create maps (Portolan charts). I added a translation to the legend. I will prepare the answer for the flags. — Niklitov (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, these are authentic flags of Sinop by Cartographers, ex: from the coins of the middle ages.
  • ✓ Done I added English using Gadget-ImageAnnotator. — Niklitov (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I'm being dense, but I still am not seeing them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, please, not understand what you do not find? Flags description or years of create maps legend or ...? — Niklitov (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • When I checked yesterday, I still didn't see all of the flags explained. Really, I'd like to vote for this map, but if I'm unable to use it to explain everything, I can't support it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Let me start with noting that over-all this map is much closer to professional quality than some of our current FP (e.g. File:Chicago top down view.png or File:LithuaniaHistory.png). It looks like a it would serve its purpose, but it is visually cluttered. To some degree that is due to the amount of information it has to convey (flags, symbols and numbers). But some of that clutter could have been avoided easily: The major problem I have with this map, is that the blue lines (legend at top left, are those shipping routes?) basically disappear in the visual noise that is created not only by the other symbols and numbers, but also by all those rivers that are not really relevant. Reducing the amount of small rivers to about 10% of what is currently shown by only keeping the ones important for navigating around the map would greatly increase the over-all readability of the map. Each map is a simplified depiction of reality, and one of the most important skills of a professional map maker is knowing what not to show. This is very close to what I'd expect to see in a printed atlas, but not quite FP-close yet. --El Grafo (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention, El Grafo! Yes, this is reconstruction of navigation routes from:
(✓ Done I translated the legend on the map into English with Gadget-ImageAnnotator).
This is a reconstruction of old maps. All old maps (Portolan chart) are overloaded with information (ex: File:Europe Mediterranean Catalan Atlas.jpeg etc). :) Rivers and navigation routes do not interfere at all with the image, but decorate and make the map scientific. For the life of people and travelers of the Middle Ages the river played a huge role — need to show. This is a Maritime chart (this is not a scheme). :) — Niklitov (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Basile Morin (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Cape Creek Bridge, Oregon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2019 at 21:03:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cape Creek Bridge in Oregon, a National Historical monument
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Bonnie Moreland - uploaded and nominated by Boothsift -- BoothSift 21:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- BoothSift 21:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The scene has FP potential, I like how the bridge “disappears” into the forest. Lighting is not wowing here and the bottom crop visually very problematic: either include more of ground level or cut it off completely. – Lucas 21:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lucasbosch: Is this better? --BoothSift 21:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Not really, now the bridge is cut off awkwardly. – Lucas 21:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Lucasbosch: How about now? --BoothSift 21:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
You'd need more space at the bottom which you didn't capture and I already wrote that the lighting makes it too boring anyway. – Lucas 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Is a “uncuttered” (sorry, English is not my native language) bottom version possible? 😄 ArionEstar 😜 21:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination @Lucasbosch: I'll renominate it after I fix it. --BoothSift 21:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Webysther 20190126135602 - Aplastodiscus ferido e com lavas de moscas.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2019 at 14:07:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it failed its nomination a short time ago.--Peulle (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Cathedral of Our Lady of Rodez 06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2019 at 07:05:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gargoyle in the south facade of the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption of Rodez, Aveyron, France
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Sculptures
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author --Tournasol7 (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A little bit of unsharpness on the left side of the frame, but the gargoyle is the subject and it's perfectly sharp. I can see people criticising this for lacking wow, but it's an interesting subject for me. Cmao20 (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree it has wow, but I think the unsharp areas could be cropped out. Daniel Case (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Unsharp left side ✓ cropped. Tournasol7 (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful Oppose despite the new crop; I find the unsharp areas unfortunate because I first look at the gargoyle and immediately at the facade where it's mounted and these two are too strongly connected logically for me. – Lucas 09:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We have thousands and thousands of pictures of gargoyles. This doesn't seem to be a special one (e.g., File:Paisley Abbey New Gargoyles.jpg) or particularly special photographically. -- Colin (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Tournasol7 (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Atobá (Sula leucogaster) filhote, nas ilhas Moleques do Sul, sul do Brasil.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2019 at 12:51:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Baby Sula leucogaster in the Moleques do Sul archipelago, southern Brazil. Data
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by AndreBiologoFloripa - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I checked the head reagion for overexposure in Photoshop: there is a region of disjointed pure white pixels, but more importantly there is not a lot of fur texture visible in the larger region around that. If I lower the brightness significantly, the texture is recovered though. I'm not sure yet if the JPG is visually too bright as it technically still contains a lot of texture in the data and this is an extreme lighting situation. I'll wait for other's opinions. – Lucas 13:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now this is more like it Arion. A nice sharp picture from an SLR. I expect you'll get criticism about the pure white pixels on the head and the foot, but I don't think these problems are severe enough to vote against - after all, the bird is white, it's hardly that it's being misrepresented. One suggestion - I would clone out the little bit of plant matter on the bottom left of the frame, it's a bit distracting as it is. Cmao20 (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I actually think the bit of plant helps the composition, though I don't expect anyone to agree with me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose white areas blown. Bottom left crop. Composition. Charles (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The light is not well handled. Head, body and foot are overexposed. Too much space on the left, not enough at the top and bottom - Basile Morin (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- It's fine for me EATCHA (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Same here. --BoothSift 05:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop and compo are fine but there are too many overexposed areas as noted by other voters. --Cart (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Cart. --Yann (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cart (talk) 07:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Christmas in Icod.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2019 at 13:26:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places#Spain
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This image sums up how I perceived Tenerife's North as a tourist. I had prepared a lengthy explanation about "good old times", recession etc., but I think I'll just see whether it speaks to you or not. All by me -- El Grafo (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- El Grafo (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not in my language! Charles (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Does it speak to me ? Like this, more or less :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Old worn out things can sometimes make for very interesting compositions, but these elements are not working that way for me. The compilation looks rather haphazard and the light doesn't do it any favors. Sorry. It might work in B&W though. --Cart (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No need to be sorry. It's just a vacation snapshot that I happen to like for some reason. I know I tend to like weird things sometimes and if everybody else thinks it sucks that's totally fine with me. B&W doesn't really work for me in this case, as the contrast between the dull everyday life and relics of a better past on the one hand and the Christmas decoration on the other hand doesn't come out that well any more. I think it's that "putting make-up on a pig" kind of theme that made me take the shot and that sets it apart from the Korfu image. Anyway, thanks for your honest opinions so far, everyone. --El Grafo (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not really seeing the big wow her, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, more or less (not a haphazard arrangement to me, but not inspiring to me, either), but a good QI candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Useless motif, unsharp in large parts. --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks everyone for your opinions! Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 13:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Far Right Juan Guaidó Photoshop to look black 2019 portrait.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2019 at 21:14:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Juan Guaidó 2019 portrait
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Yeah, almost in the religious sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree. --BoothSift 06:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Me too. --Cart (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others.--Peulle (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 13:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:O divino pôr do sol.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2019 at 01:19:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the quality is very low -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /MZaplotnik(talk) 13:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Veľká Fatra 01 - Frčkov and Ostredok.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2019 at 10:35:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Veľká Fatra, Slovakia - Frčkov and Ostredok
  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bayoustarwatch (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I think I remember you (or someone else?) nominating a similar photo that I voted for, but be that as it may, this composition isn't really working for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. The foremost fencepost is cutting distractingly through the hills behind it and it is too prominent in thumbnails. Only in closer view does it become clear that there are more of them in the background. – Lucas 20:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. --BoothSift 23:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good quality but I'm not sure the composition is quite interesting enough for FP. The scene is a little bland with not too much visual interest. Cmao20 (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lucas. I am amused, though, that Slovakia looks so much like Montana. Daniel Case (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik(talk) 13:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Edgar Allan Poe, circa 1849, restored, squared off.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2019 at 19:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

en:Edgar Allan Poe