Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2022

File:1899 poster of Mme. M. Sissieretta Jones.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2022 at 21:22:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by Metropolitan Printing Co. - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Just for the record: Yes, I don't much like the words on the poster, but "The Black Patti" was used so often to refer to her that she made a whole music group named "The Black Patti Troubadours", and the "Greatest Singer of her Race" thing appears over and over - on her gravestone, on plaques related to her, as the subtitle of a biography... Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you at least change the Filename to just her name? I think that would be appropriate, I can't bring myself to support a file with this filename --Kritzolina (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me check at en-wiki, since it's featured there and there's some interesting ways to break the on-wiki system with file moves here.
  - @Kritzolina: There we go! Sorry, thought it better to do it right than quickly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you very much, this file name is so much better. While we cannot change the past, we can do a lot about how we represent it here on our projects. And this change of filename hopefully will be an example others will follow. --Kritzolina (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries! It's a great image for her, which is why I did it, but her publicists... Not as much of a fan. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is part of American history, and it's not nearly as bad as the covers of some Scott Joplin rags from the times when he sold his music outright and had no creative control over the sheet music covers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable contribution. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support … and a very good reproduction. --Aristeas (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent job, Adam. Daniel Case (talk) 03:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent restoration, and per the title, sadly the use of such terms is a part of history and there's no use running from it Cmao20 (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gladly supporting now after the change of file name --Kritzolina (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera

File:Santuario Nacional de la Virgen de Ta 'Pinu, Għarb, isla de Gozo, Malta, 2021-08-22, DD 31.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2022 at 08:45:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Malta
Info A well composed, sharp and high-resolution photo of one of Malta's most unusual churches and an important national monument. created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per the nomination text. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful, I'm sure the time of day was not deliberate but the lights here works very well. -- KennyOMG (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Cmao20, if this nom gets through I appoint you my official FP nominator (instead of myself), as it looks like I'm not having luck lately :) Poco a poco (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although maybe I wonder if the right quarter could stand to be cropped out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An excellent picture of that outstanding builidng - but so is the other Featured image we already have of that church. I am not absolutely sure, but are the perspectives different enough to have two FIs for the building? --Kritzolina (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is higher resolution and sharper than the existing FP but the angle and light conditions are different enough that I think they can both be featured, you are of course welcome to disagree :) Cmao20 (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no certainly I don't disagree, I am still trying to learn the boundaries here. This was an honest open question, thanks for answering it in such detail. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant light and angle. --Ximonic (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 22:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Malta

File:Velika korita Soce (6).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2022 at 12:55:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Slovenia
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good quality but I somehow miss an outstanding composition, I think I see what you are trying to do with the contrasting colours but for me the leading lines are not strong enough and the composition needs a clearer focus. Cmao20 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough. Average light -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basile. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tournasol7 (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tahagart.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2022 at 11:34:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Algeria
Info created by Abderrahmane boudjenane - uploaded by Abderrahmane boudjenane - nominated by SHB2000 -- SHB2000 (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as nominator – it's a nice photo to be fair, but I don't like the green speck in the centre. -- SHB2000 (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you don't like it, why nominate it? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I didn't like the photo, I only mentioned neutral because of the speck in the center. SHB2000 (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd never nominate a photo I felt neutral about. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice to see something really different, but too noisy for me for FP --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very striking but unfortunately, in my humble opinion, overprocessed and noisy. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At thumb, you think it's great that we've managed to get our first FP nom from Dune. At full-size, you see the noise. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very beautiful and dramatic but too noisy and artefact-y at full size sadly Cmao20 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No EXIF metadata, No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac web browsers treat colors randomly. Seems over-processed to me. Poor description (only in French). And the flare of the center -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination SHB2000 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blackbird female 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2022 at 22:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Turdidae_(Thrushes)
Info created by Dkomov - uploaded by Dkomov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo, but not sharp enough to be a bird FP in 2022, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise and some unnatural-looking areas. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Львівська ратуша вночі.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2022 at 01:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Ukraine
Info created by Vitalii Bashkatov - uploaded by Vitalii Bashkatov - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lupe (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO contrast should be improved. --XRay 💬 09:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low contrast. No wow-factor --Tagooty (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sajbadina (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nickispeaki (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Ukraine

File:Яйца всмятку или денатурация альбумина.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2022 at 22:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food and drink
Info created by Gribkov - uploaded by Gribkov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is great, but I wish we knew how much it was magnified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting picture. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 11:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

Cucullia lucifuga caterpillar, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2022 at 06:42:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Side view
Top view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Erebidae_(Erebid_Moths)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Attractive light -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Erebidae_(Erebid_Moths)

File:Zaaddoos van een Phlomis. 24-01-2022. (d.j.b).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2022 at 16:18:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Lamiaceae
Info Seed pod of a Phlomis. Focus stack of 54 photos.}}
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Lamiaceae

File:Edmonia Lewis by Henry Rocher.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2022 at 17:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Henry Rocher - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A crop is available at File:Edmonia Lewis by Henry Rocher (cropped).jpg, but I think it's usually better to emphasise the full version. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and thank you for your wonderful contributions to Black History Month! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you know. I figured out the research this year, and found some good sources. It's one of those things I'm always willing to do if anyone has suggestions, but this year, I stumbled on a couple good archives to exploit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are a million photos like this. JukoFF (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- But not of Edmonia Lewis, which I think this is an excellent photo of. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, old, and valuable, but not a master piece. The cut-off furniture at the sides is not something I'd consider a pro in a posed portrait of any era. --El Grafo (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible this was meant to be put in a frame. But this is literally a museum quality piece: Evidence: um... it's from a museum. So... I do have a crop available, though, which removee the intrusions. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep very good work, forgot to vote earlier Cmao20 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Women

File:John Atkinson Grimshaw - Shipping on the Clyde (1881).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2022 at 20:54:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Exteriors
Info created by John Atkinson Grimshaw - uploaded by Donan.raven - nominated by Sajbadina -- Sajbadina (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sajbadina (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support An impressive painting! The reproduction is very sharp and clean; therefore I do not mind the (good, but not extreme) resolution. --Aristeas (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas Cmao20 (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not with that resolution. Yann (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Exteriors

File:Seattle from Space Needle June 2018 010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2022 at 18:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different view than we've featured so far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ikan, and also well-done in that you avoided most light trails, and starbursts can only be seen at high-res. I also like the bluish tone. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Aristeas (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 14:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blue hour -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States

File:Croix parc mallet stevens tunnel.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2022 at 22:22:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#France
Info created & uploaded by User:Velvet - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the spirals of wood, light and shadow. I'm not sure the category is entirely right, because this is only a partly interior shot, and that's part of its charm. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 18:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really awesome shadows! Could you mention how is the architect of this public artwork? --Ximonic (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a great idea. Velvet, do you know or could you find out and add that information to your file descriptions? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ikan Kekek for this nomination. I have added a link to the website of the agency that designed the park and its facilities. --Velvet (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! Thank you for adding the link and for correcting the tilt. It looks better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Outstanding Cmao20 (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ Interesting architecture but @Velvet: could you fix the tilt? About 2 degrees. I understand this structure confuses us, but the path is clearly rotated, and the two pillars of the background confirm. To be frank, I have currently the strong feeling this image is poorly balanced (regardless of the optical illusion, itself appreciable) -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tilt corrected. Thank you for your review. --Velvet (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support now -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner but per Basile Morin (tilt) (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors#France

File:Glaskugel -- 2022 -- 9846.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2022 at 22:29:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Optical_devices
Info created & uploaded by User:XRay - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support File:Glaskugel -- 2022 -- 9849.jpg is already an FP, but this is my favorite photo in the series, and I think it's quite significantly different from the black & white one, so it wouldn't be a problem if both are FPs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the mix of colours and composition. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per SHB2000 --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and SHB2000. Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking abstract patterns. --Tagooty (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tagooty. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I'm very late. Thank you to User:Ikan Kekek for nomination. --XRay 💬 08:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Totally OK. Of course I nominated this photo on my own initiative. Thanks for creating this very interesting series. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Optical_devices

File:Long-tailed tit Gennevilliers 2022 02 25.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2022 at 23:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Aegithalidae_(Long-tailed_Tits)
Info Long-tailed tit in a blossoming tree, all by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite nice. It would be good to identify the tree in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Prunus sp., I don't know trees (or plants in general for that matter), would be lovely if anybody can make more from the picture. -- Alexis Lours (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Aegithalidae_(Long-tailed_Tits)

File:Amonites (Pleuroceras quadratum), Ebensfeld, Alemania, 2021-01-16, DD 058-107 FS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2022 at 17:37:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Phylum_:_Mollusca
Info Focus stacked image (composed of 50 frames) of a complete stock of a ammonites of the species Pleuroceras quadratum found in Ebensfeld, Germany. The diameter of the fossil is approx 3 centimetres (1.2 in) and it lived in the Pliensbachian period and is approx. 185 million years old.. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great resolution and an impressive picture of the fossil, but are the borders of shadows posterized? In particular, I'm wondering about the horizontal line near the top of the picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Ikan Kekek, thank you for your feedback, I fixed it Poco a poco (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and well lit focus stack of an interesting object Cmao20 (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Still some posterization issues, but it is a small object to begin with and it's not as extensive as on the other one. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add the stratigraphic layer in the file description and add the corresponding categories --Llez (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Llez I copied the description from here to the file description and added 2 new cats. Thanks. Poco a poco (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Phylum_:_Mollusca

File:Cabinet Card of Sojourner Truth - Collection of the National Museum of African American History and Culture.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2022 at 07:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info Unknown photographer (Sojourner Truth claimed the copyright herself), restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is probably the most distributed image of Sojourner Truth, albeit a lot of the versions are cut off more on the sides, and usually much worse reproduced. There is a typo on it, but that seemed beyond my remit to fix, and, honestly, hard to notice unless you zoom in quite a bit (because of the font), which is probably why the typo was missed at the time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, if you noticed anything I missed, mark it on the image if you can, and I'll fix it. It's a big image and I kept finding new things when I went over it. I've done that a few times now, but past experience says there's often something.. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Important historical image, good restoration. --Yann (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Yann. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kritzolina (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Her face is haunting in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Women

File:Fuscous Honeyeater.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2022 at 09:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Meliphagidae_(Honeyeaters)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Caught the moment, both birds in sharp focus. --Tagooty (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Tagooty. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Talk to me, Baby!" This reminds me in a way of Colin's photo of the two ravens in the Tower of London, but I believe this is sharper. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A special capture from JJ Harrison, very good Cmao20 (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support They seem to talk to each other, like in a play -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Meliphagidae_(Honeyeaters)

File:Immature mute swan head in Prospect Park (32268).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2022 at 08:45:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Cygnus
Info Imo an amazingly sharp, detailed and interesting close-up by Rhododendrites. created by Rhododendrites - uploaded by Rhododendrites - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 08:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine close-up with good educational value, where the pectines are well visible. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks, Cmao20. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus : Cygnus

File:Serengeti National Park 2021-09 - Polemaetus bellicosus - martial eagle.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2022 at 09:00:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Polemaetus (Martial Eagle)
Info created & uploaded by Snowmanstudios - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep, was on my list to nominate Cmao20 (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Striking for sure, but I'm not sure about the sharpness for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fun -- Basile Morin (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The is a black spot immediately above the head --Llez (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice, but yes, could be sharper Poco a poco (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Polemaetus (Martial Eagle)

File:Female Pied Harrier in Flight (retouched).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2022 at 09:01:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Circus
Info created and uploaded by Kirkamon Cabello - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Could probably stand to do more to suppress the slight halo around parts of the bird. Daniel Case (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that face. IamMM, you really do a great job finding good, interesting photos by users whose work we usually don't see here or often even on QIC to nominate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support except why is the file name IN ALL CAPS ;) SHB2000 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not the sharpest, but very impressive. IamMM, I would also like to second Ikan’s word of thanks for your efforts to highlight exciting pictures from less known contributors. --Aristeas (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ikan Kekek for the positive feedback and also thank you Aristeas for voluntarily resolving technical issues and saving many nominations. --IamMM (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO the filename should be improved. --XRay 💬 18:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately blue chromatic aberrations around the bird at the bottom. Also the colors are over-saturated. No EXIF metadata on the file page. ~~To finish, a technical and compatibility problem: No color-space metadata and no embedded color profile: Windows and Mac web browsers treat colors randomly.~~ -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment … and there is a big dustspot in the sky near to the top-left corner. I have tried to tackle some of these problems in this derivative version. The dust spot is removed, the CAs are reduced, the colour space is defined (and the filename is better ;–)). Is this version better, Basile? And what do other people think? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly improved. Thanks, Aristeas. If not proposed as alternative now, I have no doubt a further Delist & replace nomination will gather enough supports in the future -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Basile! – I have uploaded my variant under a new filename because the original photo is a WLF 2021 winner and it’s always a bit questionable to overwrite images that have won awards in a competition. But since the derivative file only changes details, it’s maybe not necessary to offer it as an alternative (which requires additional voting). I therefore propose that we simply reallocate this vote to the derived file if no one is against it – that saves us all work.
@IamMM, Daniel Case, Ikan Kekek, SHB2000, MZaplotnik, Radomianin, Tournasol7, XRay, and Cmao20: Basile has pointed out some technical problems in this photograph and I have tried to fix most of them in this derivative version. Would you be OK with just changing this vote to use the derivative version instead of the original one? That saves us all work, and in fact it’s the same photo, just with a few less problems ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aristeas, this version is significantly better in my eyes so I support this one. --IamMM (talk) 10:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clever initiative IMO. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your initiative, Aristeas. The derived version is a real improvement. I agree with your proposed procedure to save a withdrawal/renomination. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. MZaplotnik^(talk) 14:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers and approval! If no objections are raised, I will exchange the photograph tomorrow. --Aristeas (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find the differences between the two versions subtle, but the derivative version is better, so I'm on board with featuring it, rather than the nominated version. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Ikan, the differences are minor. I would have liked to reduce the sharpening edges on the wings as well, but that would have been really difficult. So I just fixed what I could, but I hope it’s an improvement after all. --Aristeas (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! I have exchanged the original version by the derivative version now, so the latter will get featured. --Aristeas (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support now. Review amended. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Accipitriformes#Genus : Circus

File:Скелі Демерджі.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2022 at 11:36:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Crimea
Info The Demirci Rocks in the Demirci Yayla Sanctuary, Crimea, Ukraine (the Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014). It’s a pity that we have no exact coordinates, but from maps and aerial imagery I infer that we are about here and that the rocks in the centre are here. Created and uploaded by Vitalii Bashkatov, nominated by --Aristeas (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This may look like a politically motivated nomination, but in fact I was really impressed by the spectacular landscape and the dramatic light in this picture. For a photo taken in 2013 the technical quality is very good. Regarding the composition the big rock at the left is a matter of taste, of course, but I really like it: the staggered arrangement and the differences in brightness (dark foreground, bright midground, darker background, bright horizon) add a strong feeling of depth and distances to the photo. --Aristeas (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 13:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Appealing composition and light. The cirrus clouds adds a fascinating dynamism to the image. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be better if the focus was on the middle rocks, but still good.--Ermell (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrei (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hoping that it remains Ukraine for ever Poco a poco (talk) 19:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would normally oppose as I don't like the composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice composition and good quality but honestly feels overprocessed to me, the colours don't seem quite right Cmao20 (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Crimea

File:Almonds - in shell, shell cracked open, shelled, blanched.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2022 at 13:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both very educative and aesthetically pleasing. --Aristeas (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lotje (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support NUTS! Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support would be better with marzipan, but still support :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 12:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)

File:Desembarque de Pedro Álvares Cabral em Porto Seguro em 1500 by Oscar Pereira da Silva (1865–1939).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2022 at 17:50:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Historical
Info created by Oscar Pereira da Silva - uploaded and nominated by -- Wilfredor (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 12:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Театр на Подолі.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2022 at 01:11:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Ukraine
Info created by Михайло Погарцев - uploaded by Olha Us - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Symmetrical or skewed ;-)? --SHB2000 (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose any nominees from Ukraine are going to get a huge sympathy !vote at the moment (I hope this building has not been damaged) but this is still pretty good; I'd crop some of the street at the bottom out though. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I have a small list of potential candidates (mostly from Poland, Ukraine, Czechia), and its been there for ages. I just think its a cool photo of a cool building (media made a scandal and called it a barn). As for the format: square photo highlights the square building --Andrei (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but not exceptional. I would support it for VI. --Tagooty (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Daniel Case. Imho, the FP potential is not outstanding, but sufficient. -- Radomianin (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good light and composition but imo not an outstanding motif. Cmao20 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Cmao20 --IamMM (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Aristeas (talk) 09:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Ukraine

Image:Female mosquito.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2022 at 10:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Culicidae (Mosquitos)
Info created by User:Fedaro - uploaded by Fedaro - nominated by -- fedaro (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fedaro (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fedaro: Please add a link to the gallery above. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the mix of colours. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the PoV Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tempered Support - Not very sharp at much larger sizes than full-page, but that's already pretty darn big for a mosquito, and I like the composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Charles. It looks a little awkward. Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very nice close up but I am seeing posterisation and some odd pinkish dots in the background Cmao20 (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Nice picture and original perspective. --Fisicamartin (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid vote. Please read the guidelines: 50 edits minimum are required for voting -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Quality issues -- Basile Morin (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estatua en contraluz. Ferrol. F-25.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2022 at 15:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures
Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Lmbuga (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The trees are disturbing as is the cable (?) at the bottom, the location data is missing as file info. --Mosbatho (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination You're right and another day I will solve it--Lmbuga (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henry Highland Garnet by James U. Stead.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2022 at 17:46:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by James U. Stead - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'd say this is quite good for 1881. A bit shiny, which makes me think that Stead used fairly harsh lighting aimed at Garnet's head, but, frankly, it took an unfortunately-unsurprising amount of time for people to get good techniques for photographing dark skin, and it's better than most attempts I've seen for the period. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having recently read some detailed articles (with examples) about early photography, I agree that this is a good one. And the restauration is very good, as always. --Aristeas (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

Union Street Gowanus New York October 2021, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2022 at 00:27:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Gowanus, Brooklyn, afternoon
Gowanus, Brooklyn, sunset
Gowanus, Brooklyn, dusk

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support If any picture could be said to have summed up all the intangibles that make Brooklyn Brooklyn in a single shot, any of these would qualify. But you didn't stop there ... you gave us three different moods of that shot. I'd love to see a sunrise/dawn to go along with this, but maybe you need a time of year when the angle of the light would cooperate with the demands of photography and (I'm guessing) Halloween wasn't it? Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support truly outstanding! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sum of all makes the whole picture. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow³! --Aristeas (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Amazing. Cmao20 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Fun fact: this is the Gowanus Canal, a Superfund site. That barge is there for a largescale cleanup/dredging. They pull up all sorts of stuff, along with terrible smells that, mercifully, do not come through the photographs. Shortly after they got started, one of the barges sank into the canal, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#United States

File:PikiWiki Israel 84614 the western wall in the snow.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2022 at 07:16:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Israel/Palestine
Info created by Zeev Stein - uploaded by Pikiwikisrael - nominated by DGtal -- DGtal (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DGtal (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for nominating! A decent picture of an important location, but this is not up to Featured Picture level. The watermark makes it a nonstarter, regardless of the picture (see Commons:Watermarks), but it's also a little underexposed, and the angles/composition issues and distortion are prominent. Commons:Image guidelines has some useful guidance. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: as noted the image is watermarked and ineligible for FP

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) 05:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Michael church in La Meyze 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2022 at 12:57:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#France
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like how well you capture the atmosphere, but I wish the artwork on the altar were sharper, so I may not vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is nice to see a church very different in atmosphere from the ones we usually see at FP. Quality is OK for me, I'm not going to insist on pinpoint detail in an altarpiece from a photo shot from the other end of the church. Shame it's not centred but nothing anyone can do about that Cmao20 (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distortion on the left side --Wilfredor (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special on this image for FP nomination, IHMO, and also per Wilfredor. -- Karelj (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 14:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bloem van een Boerenjasmijn (Philadelphus). 03-07-2021 (actm.).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2022 at 16:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Hydrangeaceae
Info Flower and buds of a Philadelphus. Focus stack of 26 photos.
All by -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support nicely balanced and excellent stack --Virtual-Pano (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hulged (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Virtual-Pano. Small typo in gallery link fixed. --Aristeas (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 05:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Hydrangeaceae

File:Female Russian photographer with the Antonov An-225 overhead.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2022 at 18:43:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Standing people
Info created by Dmitry Terekhov - uploaded by CPAfan - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had this image on my list for a long time, but I had not nominated it yet due to quality shortcomings and non-compliance with the standards of recent years. I think now that the legendary An-225 is gone and no longer exists, this nomination is worth a try. -- IamMM (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this is a great picture timing-wise! The standards may have risen and perhaps many expect higher resolution. I would say it has a sufficient quality, even if a bit noisy. Suits the guidelines, and in the correct context I think this is a good one, and cannot be done again concidering the age of the plane. --Ximonic (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, funny portrait. I don't think it matters that the plane in the background no longer exists, and a slight amount of noise in the background is not important. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan and Ximonic, funny photo and the quality is far from terrible Cmao20 (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting, but strong vignetting -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a cool looking photo. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Magogre (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the eve of the 11th anniversary of its being taken. Slightly vignetted, but I don't care. Daniel Case (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is the appropriate reaction for seeing the An-225. Really bummed that she may never fly again. --El Grafo (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quite pleasant image but disturbing vigneting + slightly overplayed expression of the model. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I fully agree with Christian. Having in mind what happened to this plane, this "funny" image is not adequate. --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question I guess that particular plane crashed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek It was destroyed or at least severely damaged during the first days of the war in Ukraine, standing in its hangar. Which is undoubtedly sad, as it is the only 225 ever to be completed. A giant piece of machinery with a fascinating history. A bit like a modern day Spruce Goose, with the notable difference that it actually flew regularly. I do not understand what's wrong with a picture celebrating its glory, and I have no problems believing that to be the genuine facial expression of an aviation nerd (yes, there are female ones). El Grafo (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given this image, I don't think Mriya will be able to fly anymore. The An-225 was the largest aircraft in the world, and only one of them was built, which was in the possession of Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR. Seeing it in the Russian sky for any avgeek spotter could be a surprise. --IamMM (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that that was the big plane that I saw pictures of that was damaged in its hangar. I really fail to see why its destruction years after this picture was taken is really relevant to our judgment here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think relevant. Taking such an image can no longer be repeated, and IMHO this is more important than the size of the plane and the reaction of the photographer's face. Flight moments and images of the An-225 are now frozen in history. --IamMM (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What if they fix the plane, after all? Anyway, I'm sorry if my supporting vote is insensitive to the suffering of Ukrainians, which is certainly not my intention. Perhaps this nomination was at an inopportune time, in that sense, but I can't see changing my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope it can be fixed, but I asked someone who worked in the Air Force Maintenance Department, and he replied that the damage to the cockpit, right wing, and central airframe structure seemed irreparable. --IamMM (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose FP? Gimmick shot, despite goodwill we have to Ukraine. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others opposers. --Milseburg (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Uoaei1. Not really funny, as it was just destroyed by the Russian invasion. --Andrei (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others and reso is too low for me. --Ivar (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Christian. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support An excellent capture of someone who gets extremely excited at the sight of a particular plane. You see overdramatic -- I see the playful giddiness I've seen in people who are just really into something and manage to find/capture it (planes, trains, birds), and how that might translate if you told them you were going to take a picture rather than just snapping something candidly. ...and here their excitement is in the same frame as the plane! My support is completely unrelated to the nationalities btw (which I didn't think about until reading the above). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others--Lmbuga (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Standing people

File:Trilobites (Austerops speculator), Jebel Oufatene, Marruecos, 2021-01-18, DD 137-195 FS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2022 at 17:25:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Class_:_Trilobita
Info Focus stacked image (composed of 59 frames) of a complete stock of a trilobites of the species Austerops speculator found in Jebel Oufatene, Morocco. The length of the fossil is approx 3 centimetres (1.2 in) and it lived in the Early Devonian period and is approx. 400 million years old. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I don't find this as good as the ammonite focus stack above. The light is not as good and in comparison to the other one the sharpness is a bit lacking IMO Cmao20 (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cmao20: Thank you for your feedback. I've uploaded a new version with more detail. In fact I find this subject more interesting and extraordinary than the ammonite, above all due to the so well preserved eyes. --Poco a poco (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better, I have still seen sharper focus stacks on this page but I think it's okay given the high resolution/detail. Cmao20 (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Let's remember the size of the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A good point, we should definitely bear in mind that even if not fully sharp at full res this is a huge amount of detail for something 3cm long Cmao20 (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Magogre (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per unnatural-looking detail at full res. Daniel Case (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add the stratigraphic layer in the file description and add the corresponding categories --Llez (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Llez I copied the description from here to the file description and added 2 new cats. Thanks. Poco a poco (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Class_:_Trilobita

File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, Börnste, Neusträßer Graben -- 2022 -- 9891.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2022 at 08:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Germany#North Rhine-Westphalia
Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the nice use of colours --SHB2000 (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Warm, very pleasant atmosphere. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors in this shot definitely make me sad, it looks more like the glow of light from an approaching nuclear bomb shock wave. --Wilfredor (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin Cmao20 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Startus (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too late. Again. Thank you to Tomer T for nominating! --XRay 💬 13:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Germany#North Rhine-Westphalia

File:Hipopótamo (Hippopotamus amphibius), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 82.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2022 at 11:23:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Hippopotamidae (Hippopotamuses)
Info There are currently no FPs of hippos outside the water - all six FPs of hippos we have are swimming and thus partly concealed by the water, so this offers something different. (Also none of them can match this photo for resolution). I agree there is a bit of noise at full size but honestly for a 46 megapixel image shot at 600mm focal length from a super-telephoto lens I think the quality is excellent, look at the amount of detail visible on the hippo's skin, and everything seems sharp. Also nice to have the great egret in the photo too, and adds value because as far as I understand it this is an example of symbiosis - the egret eats parasites and insects off the hippo that could otherwise hurt or irritate it. created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you, Cmao20 for the nom and to the egret for providing the scale bar :) Poco a poco (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is really solid work, and I'm ultimately supporting per nom because since it's too dangerous to be close to a wild rhinoceros, this is probably as good as it can be. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ikan Kekek, I quite agree with this (hippo not rhino btw, but hippos are even more dangerous to be close to) but I would also note for anyone unsure how to vote that the resolution of this image is pretty immense - one can produce from it this 10 megapixel downsample which is absolutely tack sharp with no noise and which would imo be sufficient to pass FP by itself, so the extra size on top of that is a bonus really. Cmao20 (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, careless mistake on my part. I take your point, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Backlighting would not be my choice. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though I guess Poco did not have a chance to take a photo with better lighting. Overall this remains FP to me regardless but I respect your opinion. Cmao20 (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good and FP, but the bird seems to me a bit overexposed--Lmbuga (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family : Hippopotamidae (Hippopotamuses)

File:Robert Jacob Hamerton - Poster for F. C. Burnand and Arthur Sullivan's The Contrabandista.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2022 at 12:20:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera
Info created by Robert Jacob Hamerton - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Entertainment#Music_and_Opera

File:Yellow Bittern at Hyoko 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2022 at 12:23:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus : Ixobrychus
Info created by Cp9asngf - uploaded by Cp9asngf - nominated by Cp9asngf -- Cp9asngf (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cp9asngf (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yann and me have fixed the nomination page. Hope now everything works. --Aristeas (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Awkward crop at the bottom, tight crop on right, dark overall, the eye is nice, though Poco a poco (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Moving to oppose as no better version was provided Poco a poco (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking, an unusual composition for a bird photo on this site, and ultimately, I find it successful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed and too tightly cropped at the bottom for my taste. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Underexposed and tight crop -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark and poor crop. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice capture but per Charles, the crop especially is a bit arbitrary and I don't find it that satisfying to look at because of it. Cmao20 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 Spire of Notre-Dame de Paris P46.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2022 at 13:53:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Towers#France
Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting take, but unfortunately unbalanced at the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of course it is lovely to see the spire intact pre-fire, but as good as this photo is, I don't think the light or composition are more than a good QI. Cmao20 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews. (Poor English) I don't really understand the problem with the light. In addition, an alternative is given to you so that the lower part allows a better composition?. I think a cut, not; but... I need to learn--Lmbuga (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donkey Franio nearby Camaldolese Church.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2022 at 19:08:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Equidae_(Equids)
Info created by LoMit - uploaded by LoMit - nominated by LoMit -- LoMit ^talk 19:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LoMit ^talk 19:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please explain what's unusually great about this photo, because I'm not getting it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this image shows a donkey, which was a very popular attraction there since 2002 – it died in December 2020 and this is the only image on Commons showing it (all good photos are copyrighted). I decided to photograph it, showing its place of residence, which is a very important thing – this donkey was never used for work and it spent most of its life there. In this photo, there is an interesting light (at least in my opinion) – it emphasizes the texture of skin (hair) and the tree makes a pretty shadow on the wall of the Camaldolese hermitage (built in the 17th century). It's highlighting the main subject very well. The light creates a great atmosphere of a warm, autumnal day. The second reason is color – most areas of this image have warm, similar colors (mostly shades of yellow and orange). They are responsible for giving it a unique atmosphere (along with light). But there is a small part with a blue clear sky which is adding a nice accent. The third and final reason is the composition – the roof of the building takes up a similar part of the photo as the ground – they form a kind of frame. This composition relies mostly on horizontal and vertical lines - the gutter almost creates a common line with the roof of a stable and the lines of most objects are perpendicular. And of course, the main subject was placed in the bottom-middle to show its scale to the environment. Well, I hope these arguments will help to understand why I nominate this image. And of course, I like it very much --LoMit ^talk 00:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely do. I'll have another look later. Thank you! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I love this image and I added a cut sugestion to the image to prevent distractions of the main scene. --Wilfredor (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, as in I would probably support with Wilfredo's suggested crop. Daniel Case (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light and the peaceful atmosphere make this image special for me --Kritzolina (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The long shadow in the foreground is quite dominant, yet I tend to support the image because the positive image characteristics outweigh it. In addition, the arguments and background information described by LoMit have influenced my decision. Nevertheless, the cropping suggested by Wilfredor would be a good alternative, too. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully Oppose, but I'd support the cropped version suggested by Wilfredor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop creates a completely different image. But I think it is important to see how the animal lives.--Ermell (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure. I just don't find the composition satisfying for purely formal reasons. I feel kind of suffocated by the top crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows too harsh and I don't think the composition works with cropped roof etc. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the shadow. --Milseburg (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I find this an interesting and painterly photo, like a 'glimpse of life' if that makes any sense. But I do think a bit too much of it is in shadow and that the composition doesn't really thrill me, the donkey being centred in the frame is IMO not ideal Cmao20 (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good shot, I like it, but I don't find it extraordinary, the lighting is difficult and composition or detail are not compensating that, sorry, Poco a poco (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I love the shadows, and I think that the in the photo there is an ecological dimension because of the animal in question--Lmbuga (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others - shadows... -- Karelj (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:European robin Créteil 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2022 at 15:02:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Muscicapidae_(Old_World_Flycatchers)
Info European robin (Erithacus rubecula) singing, all by User:Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for composition, lighting and focus. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Magogre (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality around legs and branch. We have more than enough robin FPs. Please suggest one for delist (such as this one) which you believe is inferior to this rather than just adding another. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Muscicapidae_(Old_World_Flycatchers)

File:Bled Island 05.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2022 at 10:53:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Slovenia
Info created & uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too many elements in the composition, lack of uniformity of the left side with respect to the right side. The color in the shadow generated by the trees looks unnatural or almost solid black. --Wilfredor (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm not so bothered by the inconsistency between the right and left framing; to me it would look worse if the trees were only on one side. Real forests will not cooperate with your notions of aesthetics. Although it probably could stand to lose a little on the bottom and left (see note).
The issue for me would be the bluish cast on the forest closer to the viewer ... I think that could be cleaned up. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I do like it, and it is indeed one of the better (or best) views of that jewel-of-a-lake I have seen, but I agree that Daniel’s crop suggestion would make it be better. In addition I wonder if the processing could be improved here and there to bring out the quality of the photo (e.g. tackle the bluish cast mentioned by Daniel, reduce the exposure on the island and the castle a little bit and add a tiny little bit of sharpening to island and castle) … --Aristeas (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer the suggested crop. --Basotxerri (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the way to show Lake Bled. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this very much and honestly prefer it without the crop. Really nice to see the contrast between the dark foreground and the bright well-lit lake in the distance, IMO the crop is a generally less satisfying composition Cmao20 (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 13:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 --IamMM (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I vote this way without prejudice to Daniel's comment about a bluish cast, and I'm undecided about whether this or the suggested crop is better, but this is a really beautiful photo to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Slovenia

File:Burg Katz und Loreley.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2022 at 14:15:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Other#Germany
Info Katz Castle and the Lorelei over the Rhine. All by me. -- Milseburg (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really too appealing for me not to support. Great resolution and sharpness, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan, maybe the light could be better but really no reason to quibble too much Cmao20 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the first things I saw on my first trip to continental Europe years ago. Wish I had been better able to appreciate it at the time (then again I was right off the plane). However, I can certainly be partial to any landscapes that remind me of the Hudson Highlands near where I live now. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Other#Germany

File:Downy woodpecker in GWC (33941).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2022 at 04:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Picidae_(Woodpeckers)
Info Tiny downy woodpecker (Dryobates pubescens) doing some foraging. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it tilted in ccw direction? I looks a bit awkward that it's capable of holding its weight in that position Poco a poco (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This position is not awkward at all, woodpeckers can comfortably hang even upside down. --Ivar (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I Support then Poco a poco (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Startus (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you recover blown highlights? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did play with the highlights prior to uploading. I didn't care for the way the overall image looked when I brought them down sufficiently to gain more detail. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Picidae_(Woodpeckers)

File:Ankara asv2021-10 img51 view from Gençlik Park Ferris wheel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2022 at 15:23:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Turkey
Info View of the Gençlik Park and Ulus, Ankara, from Ferris wheel. All by me. --A.Savin 15:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 15:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support An amazing view with very good light, colours and sharpness. --Aristeas (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very well-done technically, although I do find that ride arm in the front a bit distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get it honestly. What am I looking at exactly? Sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Martin. No wow, disturbing foreground, background not really interesting --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I accept the foreground, but the view doesn't add up to something really interesting and compelling to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Straightforward composition but IMO a good enough illustration of the motif to support, nothing flashy but nice light and colours Cmao20 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estatua en contraluz. Ferrol. F-30.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2022 at 14:09:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Monuments and memorials
Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Lmbuga (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lmbuga (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't love the light, and while the sharpness is fine for QI, I think it could be more impressive for FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Solid QI but I wish the sky were not so completely featureless. I don't demand a bright blue sky for everything but here it's completely grey and has no colour at all, not even a nice stormy atmosphere. So I don't think it's FP when someone could easily go and take a pic under more interesting light. Cmao20 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the reviews. You are right--Lmbuga (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

File:PorscheGT3-20160407-RM-190044.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2022 at 23:26:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land vehicles#Automobiles
Info All by me -- Ermell (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't looked at all other photos in scope, but this looks probably worth nominating at COM:VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I wish that stripe at the bottom weren't there. Daniel Case (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i think, that there is much more better angles for looking on and photographing of the racing car. I do not see anything interesting on roof and the front hood of it. -- Karelj (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Karelj is probably right, but the bottom line is that looking at this photo just doesn't excite me. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strange POV Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sadly per above, great quality but IMO this just isn't the most compelling perspective to illustrate a car from. Cmao20 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Три олениці взимку.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2022 at 11:03:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Cervidae_(Deers)
Info created by Byrdyak - uploaded by Byrdyak - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop I have suggested would make me feel more secure in casting another pro-Ukraine sympathy !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cute deer but too much empty space. The proposed crop looks to me like it would improve the composition and would probably garner my vote, though I'd have to look at it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support A winter’s tale ;–). I understand the idea of a crop but honestly I like this (original) version better. --Aristeas (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version --Llez (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cropped version is very good too, but this one pleases me more. I feel more depth when looking at it. -- Radomianin (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support both are fine with me. --Ivar (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one. --Hulged (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original's better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful atmosphere Cmao20 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- hockei (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (crop)[edit]

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Cervidae_(Deers)
Info created by Byrdyak - uploaded by Andrew J.Kurbiko - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dont like this version much, but you asked for it --Andrei (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer the original version, but this crop is good, too. --Aristeas (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Basotxerri (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one Poco a poco (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd probably prefer a slightly less generous right crop, because there's either too much or not enough of the tree branches in the upper right. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course, as I suggested it. Daniel Case (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too much space at the left in my view (where the shadows are, unfortunately). Lead room is not working for me, thus I prefer the original -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Neither crop is quite right, but the shadow at the bottom ruins the original. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original is better, no reason to crop so tight - let it breathe on the right hand side Cmao20 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop. -- hockei (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original preferred — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support More intimate than the original. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely.-- Shagil Kannur (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 15:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Cervidae_(Deers)

The chosen alternative is: File:Три олениці взимку.jpg

File:Greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2022 at 08:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phoenicopteridae (Flamingos)
Info I was surprised that I had to create the category 'Birds of Bahrain'. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice use of horizontal line and the widescreen format. Reminds me of Poco's File:Jabirú africano (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis), delta del Okavango, Botsuana, 2018-07-31, DD 11.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Pity the reflection in the water is not complete--Lmbuga (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sharpening mask seems off (e.g. below the neck of the left bird, where part of the background was sharpened; halos around the neck of the right bird) and there are many sharpening artifacts (e.g head and neck of the middle flamingo, legs of the left one). Could these have been caused by a machine learning algorithm (e.g. Topaz Labs) going overboard? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have corrected some Topaz Denoise AI sharpening on the background. As you say, it can do this. The 'artefacts' on the neck are hair tufts which are there in RAW and not introduced by sharpening. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having another shot at this, Charles. I assume that the previous version had been upscaled with Gigapixel and this is now the image's native resolution? The smaller size mitigates the issues, but they are still there. Perhaps manual masking and sharpening would improve things, but ultimately the original image seems too soft for recovery (looking at the water, the camera seems to have slightly back-focused), so I regretfully Oppose

Yes, I had used Gigapixel to upscale the image for use in the nearby Movenpick Hotel's foyer! Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice composition and light, but the subjects are out of focus and there's an odd mix of sharp/blurry spots (like on the neck of the middle bird). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The procession of the three flamingos is great! But I have to rack my brains about the sharpening. The sharp part of the water looks unnatural, as if it was clotted or frozen; it would be wonderful if the sharpening could be reduced there. And while the rightmost flamingo is very sharp, its head is soft and looks like melting; this gives an unfortunate contrast. No offence, I would not tax your patience if I wasn’t conviced that this is a great photo which deserves further improvements. --Aristeas (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the issue with the water, but you are right that there is some motion blur on the leading bird's head which I had not noticed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but it is just too badly processed. Suggest going back to the raw and sticking to an "honest" tool like Lightroom's sharpen/mask rather than letting AI go crazy and having to paint over its mistakes with a blurring brush or whatever has happened here. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very regretful weak oppose per Rhododendrites and Colin. What makes it look irresistible at thumb makes it non-FP when seen in full. Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honestly reading some of these reviews I expected it to look much more unnatural at full size but it seems fine to me Cmao20 (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp/blurred Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avocado Hass - single and halved.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 09:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 10:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 18:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 22:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was just remarking the other day about how pleasing it is to open an avocado and discover it to be soft, but no dark spots, no stringy bits, to cleanly separate the seed, and cleanly remove it from the skin. The perfect avocado. I was lucky enough to get two of those recently (they're rare -- at least where I live). Anyway, a perfect photo stack of an avocado is pleasing, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very appetizing. --Aristeas (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Virtual-Pano (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)

File:Belgian soldier during Rampant Lion, EU Battlegroup 2014 II exercise in Grafenwoehr, Germany.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 10:11:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#People_at_work
Info created by Markus Rauchenberger - uploaded by Fæ - nominated by GuerraSucia -- GuerraSucia (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GuerraSucia (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why crop the soldier and his weapon? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This is a fine photo and there is no problem with it but I feel like it doesn't really stand out amongst photos of the military on exercises. Cmao20 (talk) 01:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Cmao. A crop to just the soldier would definitely improve it, but I'm not sure that would make it an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unimpressive crop, composition, and sharpness. --Trougnouf (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hand-made Kris.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 10:09:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info created by Sandhi Irawan - uploaded by Cempedak9 - nominated by GuerraSucia -- GuerraSucia (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GuerraSucia (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Man with hammer is blurred. Totally unsafe working practice. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too busy for the spark shower to overcome. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small, and I'm disappointed not to see any kris. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ic443 nf c shorgb 2218m+823m+666m+729m 2218m 37h.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 08:12:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Astronomy#Nebulae
Info created and uploaded by Ram samudrala - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Impressive example of astrophotography --GRDN711 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was on my list to nominate. For amateur astrophotography by a user with a Commons account this is truly excellent. One ought not to judge on the ridiculously high standards of Hubble Cmao20 (talk) 01:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Truly based on determination and knowledge --Virtual-Pano (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Nebulae

File:Palace of Westminster from the dome on Methodist Central Hall - 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 20:40:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Toys
Info Something a bit different. You may remember this featured picture from 2014. I created an 8x6 crop and purchased a 1000 piece jigsaw from puzzleYOU. Here's the completed puzzle. If you want to pixel-peep the puzzle and the original, then use this version which has similar resolution to the photo of the puzzle and is what was actually uploaded to puzzleYOU. The uploaded image gets a little bit cropped by the puzzle-making process. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support High resolution image of a completed jigsaw puzzle where the source image is freely licenced and available on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dumb question, and just one I want to raise now: This kind of puzzle cut is so standardised in basic form that it couldn't be considered a copyrighted artwork, right? Especially if it's generated randomly, I can only presume that's true, but it seems worth asking. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam, ha ha, only on Commons would such a question be asked. I had a look for deletion discussions and only found those concerning jigsaws that had copyright artwork. My guess is that a puzzle using this very regular (six types) of a squarish piece with random choice of tabs and blanks is functional. Each piece varies slightly not for aesthetic reason, but so that it is hard to put the wrong piece into place and reassuring when the right piece is found. There are some jigsaws (mostly older style) with artistic and representative shapes, but this grid here seems more like randomly cut laminate flooring or a dry stone dyke (assembly of random pieces whose position is determined by fit, not appearance). I suspect this is a question that is inadvisable to pursue on a Commons noticeboard as you'll just get "someone on the internet" speculating from a position of ignorance and zero case law, and might result in some admin deleting all the jigsaw puzzles from Commons. -- Colin (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point. Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see something a bit different. Cmao20 (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support refreshingly different --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Lmbuga (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ha ha! Seems a little vain but ... you did complete the puzzle, which probably resulted in some confounding moments ("I took this picture ... I should be able to figure out where this &%$&!# piece goes!").
Actually though, I've thought there's a little fundraising potential for the Foundation in using our FPs this way. Hold on to this thought ... Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to use my restorations, as long as the Media Viewer sense of crediting people doesn't get used there too. It's been 8 years since the coding team were made aware that Media Viewer strips credit for any creator after the first, and it still hasn't been fixed - but at least it could theoretically be fixed, unlike a printed box. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Cmao20 and M. Falbisoner. -- Radomianin (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Toys

File:Red-naped Ibis in Patiala.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 16:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds
Info created by - uploaded by - nominated by Satdeep Gill -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Satdeep Gill (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this might struggle at QI. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground lacks detail. Cyan or blue chromatic aberrations at right. I don't like the composition at bottom. Not FP IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting contrast, but not aethestically striking enough to me for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 03:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theyyam of Kerala by Shagil Kannur 303.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 04:19:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
InfoTheyyam (Teyyam, Theyam or Theyyattam) is a popular ritual form of dance worship in Kerala -- All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd seriously consider supporting this if you crop out half of the sand or so. I'll try making a crop suggestion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ikan Kekek for your suggestion. Now please check the cropped image. Also tried to correct the composition.Shagil Kannur (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I find this photo fascinating to look at and move my eyes around, so I deem it successful. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too chaotic; the performers do not stand out from the crowd. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link added. --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Shagil Kannur (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is cluttered. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now cropped and corrected. Please check and reconsider. Shagil Kannur (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per King and Charles. Daniel Case (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, interesting and useful photo but the composition is IMO unbalanced with too much empty foreground and the performers don't stand out from the background Cmao20 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please reconsider your vote Daniel Case, Cmao20, Charlesjsharp and King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠. Shagil Kannur (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Composition is unchanged. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted with rule of three. Please explain how to make feel you better. Shagil Kannur (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Shagil Kannur (talk) 02:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stained wooden clapboard siding.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2022 at 21:04:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Walls
Info created by Daniel Case - uploaded by Daniel Case - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Near the door of our then-insurance agent's office -- Daniel Case (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascination of simplicity. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perfectly nice but no great composition to me. I've already looked at it a few times; I'll try again but don't expect to suddenly see a linear arabesque or something else compelling in lieu of one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice abstract with rich colours Cmao20 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see any reason for FP nomination here. -- Karelj (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Walls

File:Altar llamado el Transparente cropped.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2022 at 11:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media/Others#Interiors
Info - uploaded by A. C. Santacruz - nominated by A. C. Santacruz -- A. C. Santacruz (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High quality engraving of en:El Transparente. A. C. Santacruz (talk) 11:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice engraving, but this is very small for any kind of FP in 2022. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's over 3.5m pixels, which I judged as safely over the 2m expected minimum, Ikan Kekek. A. C. Santacruz (talk) 12:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you looked at the size of most reproductions that get featured nowadays? The fact that a photo is above the bare minimum necessary to be featured in unusual circumstances doesn't go very far toward guaranteeing its acceptance as one of the very best works in its category on this site. That argument would have a much greater chance of success at com:qic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The borders and captions are inherent to this kind of artwork, and the resolution... We do feaure things near the minimal pixels, but their original size is usually around 3"×4" (about 7cm×10cm) so everything's sharp. There's clearly lost detail here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have taken the liberty to change the gallery link. Gallery pages like Interiors/Religious buildings are used only for photographs; for reproductions of paintings, drawings etc. we have the Non-photographic media/Others etc. gallery pages. Your friendly gallery link service ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Adam. Daniel Case (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Adam, very interesting engraving but although it technically meets the minimum resolution, the kind of material in this category that passes is usually much higher res nowadays Cmao20 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Victoria Claflin Woodhull by Mathew Brady - Oval Portrait.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 22:00:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Women
Info created by Mathew Brady - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating person, good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 12:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Women

File:RENFE 730 Linarejos-Pedroso - Puebla de Sanabria.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2022 at 16:28:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Poco a poco (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing as ever Cmao20 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although that area where there's almost no shadows does look a little weird. Daniel Case (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It's great, as so many of David's train pictures are, but here, unfortunately, I feel that the shadow is a little too distracting. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support taking into account Daniel’s and Bruce1ee’s hints. --Aristeas (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think we have enough of these "trains on bridges" photos, particularly from David Gubler, that is is not "among the finest". The landscape is boring and yes the hard sunlight forms a big shadow like the portrait photos your dad took of you with his on-camera flash casting a shadow of your head on the wall behind. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles

File:Secretariat Building, New Delhi by Shagil Kannur.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2022 at 13:35:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors
Info The Secretariat Building or Central Secretariat is where the Cabinet Secretariat is housed, which administers the Government of India. Built in the 1910s, it is home to some of the most important ministries of the Cabinet of India.

All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many portions are not well-illuminated; would work better during the blue hour. Some subjects just don't look good when pitch-black. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose In addition to King's issues, there are many unsharp portions. Daniel Case ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk* Comment Still a good night picture, though, in my opinion. I'd support at COM:QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Shagil Kannur (talk) 04:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bamberg Ottokirche Luftbild-20211031-RM-120034.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2022 at 22:58:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info An aerial photo of a German church; IMO high quality, good composition and colours. created by Ermell - uploaded by Ermell - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's really superb quality for a drone photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom.--Ermell (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Poco a poco (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the version above, so I move my support vote there. Poco a poco (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don't know ... it's technically good, but I find the cityscape background a little distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how one could take a picture of this church without having the city in the background, but maybe your point is you don't think the motif is feature-worthy, in which case fair enough Cmao20 (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best perspective and lighting angle. The building is flat so the architectural features aren't clear and we don't know how deep they are. The bottom crop is tight, giving little context for its location. While many of our architectural photos with this perspective and short distance-to-subject suffer from being taken on the ground, this one has the opposite problem, of being taken nearly level with the clock. The ideal height to minimise perspective distortion would be half-way up, though that might cause trees and other low buildings to cover the bottom a bit.

File:Bamberg Ottokirche Luftbild-20211031-RM-115941.jpg is a far superior aerial photo in every way. The angle demonstrates the features of the building, and shade highlights form. We can see how broad the building is and how deep features such as windows are. Despite being taken even higher up, it is further back, so the proportions of the tower don't appear distorted. We get a much better idea of its location in the town. All this compensate, imo, for the subject being a little smaller. In an aerial photo, you have much more freedom of viewpoint and fewer obstacles hiding the subject, so I think you should step away from front elevation view and pick the angled perspective view. While the former is great for builders working to a plan, it is the latter that architects use to show off to the client how their buildings look. There's a reason why. -- Colin (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that that photo is better. Is it too different to offer as an alternative for us to vote on? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lmbuga (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support But File:Bamberg Ottokirche Luftbild-20211031-RM-115941.jpg is even better in my opinion.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Milseburg (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info As three people have now expressed a preference for this photo, I am adding it as an alternative. Pinging all who have voted on the original: @Ikan Kekek, Colin, Llez, Ermell, Aristeas, Poco a poco, Fischer.H, Daniel Case, and Agnes Monkelbaan: @Radomianin, Lmbuga, and Vulphere: .
Weak support I actually prefer the other one, I think the light is better (the colours are a bit washed out by comparison in this one) and you can see more of the clock tower in the original which is one of the most interesting parts of this church. But now I have added both, you can make up your own minds. Cmao20 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this composition better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Me too ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments above, though strictly speaking, this isn't what Alts are for: "Alternatives are for different crops or post-processing of the original image, if they are suggested by voters." -- Colin (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Famberhorst: who was missed out of the above list. -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, but I have done the same once before and not got in trouble for it (actually on your suggestion

) here. Thanks for pinging Famberhorst. Cmao20 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: While the rule may say that in theory, I think the rule in practice (and what is more in line with the spirit of having alts) is: "Alternatives are for images which are sufficiently similar to the original nomination that it is inconceivable that both could be promoted FP." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we have FPs of the same subject from different angles (I'm not saying that's good, just that it happens) so I don't think this fits your "in practice" rule. But the place to discuss changing what the rules actually say is the FPC talk page. -- Colin (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better composition, I prefer this one.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 01:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better composition.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Famberhorst; I like this photo, too. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both variants have their merits; so I am fine with either of them as FP. --Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany

The chosen alternative is: File:Bamberg Ottokirche Luftbild-20211031-RM-115941.jpg

File:Entengasse 3 - Homberg Efze 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2022 at 07:34:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this, great motif and colours Cmao20 (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kind of busy for me, though. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very eye catching. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 10:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photographically just a QI. The subject is interesting, but this is a small crop of an interesting building (File:Entengasse 3 Homberg (Efze) 20200831 004.jpg and File:Entengasse 3 Homberg (Efze) 20200831 021.jpg). -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, a crop of one of the most notable details of this building --Llez (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highlighting just one aspect of a building is legitimate. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 06:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful detail capture. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed a very interesting building, but this detail – a portal with ears ;–) – is especially notable and captured well. --Aristeas (talk) 08:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Karelj (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. The crop is not interesting IMO--Lmbuga (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop shows an interesting detail. --Milseburg (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Virtual-Pano (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is ok, lighting ordinary leaving than the question whether the subject can be considered extraordinary. To me it isn't but on the other side it is original enough not to oppose, so I keep neutral. For this kind of shots it would be important IMHO (and a success criteria for the nom), if you provide some additional information about the subject (history, propertiees,...), as you required in the noms of others. Poco a poco (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Exteriors#Germany

File:Fósil de erizo de mar (Glypticus hieroglyphicus), Foug, Francia, 2021-01-16, DD 001-090 FS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2022 at 21:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Phylum_:_Echinodermata
Info Focus stacked image (composed of 45 frames) of a complete stock of a sea urchin fossil (Glypticus hieroglyphicus), Foug, France. The exemplar has a diameter of less than 2 centimetres (0.79 in) and belongs to the middle Oxfordian and is approximately 160 million years old. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support IMO good photo considering the diameter of less than 2cm, and the extremely high resolution - the actual detail captured here is quite amazing even if not fully sharp at full size. I do wish the light were more compelling though, the kind of pic that's crying out for raking light and feels lacking in contrast as it is. Cmao20 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like some sort of dessert you might like a lot more than you expected to ... Daniel Case (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's a distracting halo round the upper half of the left fossil. It starts grey near the surface and then goes brighter and then dims again. The image also gets darker in the left bottom corner and middle, as though the left photo has a vignette. (If this doesn't show on your monitor, open in an image viewer like IrfanView and shift the gamma down to darken it, which makes it very obvious). The right fossil has a thin white ring all around its upper half, possibly due to oversharpening. But the critical flaw is that these are interesting semi-spherical objects with surface details, and the all-around lighting here is the worst choice to demonstrate any of that form and texture. It's like "How can I light this in the least interesting way?" Like an ebay photo, not photographic art. -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 13:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed some kind of vignetting at the top of the image and improved the crop so that it's more balanced Poco a poco (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the images are to scale. The white background does no favours. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp: What is wrong with the scale? looking at both views the one on the right does have actually a smaller diameter than the one of the left but as the bigger area is closer to the camera it seems to be bigger. Regarding the background, well, a matter of taste I'd say. I've played around with dark and bright backgrounds and both matte and shiny Poco a poco (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see it is closer to the camera, but it should be re-sized. Could you try a coloured background? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the object was substantially closer to the camera, but the fact that the shown side was the biggest one, makes it look bigger IMHO. I can try a coloured background but then a real one and without editing. It can take me some time though I have a big backlog of underwater images Poco a poco (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 13:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones_and_fossils#Phylum_:_Echinodermata

File:Benjamin Franklin Tilley - NH 67313.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2022 at 14:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info Unknown photographer, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ah, chiaroscuro photography. Such a early 20th-century trend, but I have to admit to being impressed at how much detail the photographer got in the shadowed eye. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting photographic style. I guess there will be complaints about the crop ;–). Gallery link added. --Aristeas (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice portrait. Do you know or have a clear idea what the size of the original print was? Also, why are you confident that the greater amount of light on his arms and hands in the original upload is not accurate? Your edit is subtly posterized in places, especially on his left (viewer's right) arm. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Largely because it's a fading along the bottom, a common issue from people naturally holding a picture at the bottom, and the fabric is presumably navy blue, which can only get so bright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support That makes sense. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Adam. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Church of light.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2022 at 15:42:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Iceland
Info created and uploaded by AstroAnthony - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Beautiful photo ,but it needs a perspective improvement. On the left I see a street lamp and I can't imagine that it is really so crooked. --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some small technical improvements could be made (perspective correction, plus there is some chromatic aberration) but such an amazing view that it should be FP for me. Cmao20 (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support perspective correction is not a necessity. The viewer is clearly looking upwards... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magical realism!!--Shagil Kannur (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks that the aurora were shot separately with different settings than the church. I trust that they were there. White balance is a little on the warm side but I think it's alright. But overall this picture is great. --Ximonic (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see some room for improvement in the processing, but still FP to me Poco a poco (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Aurora

File:President Lyndon B. Johnson Signing of the Immigration Act of 1965 (02) - restoration1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2022 at 20:59:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1960-1970
Info created by Bammesk - uploaded by Bammesk - nominated by TheFreeWorld -- TheFreeWorld (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheFreeWorld (talk)
Question What was the original size of the print? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honour to whom honour is due: The photo was taken by Yoichi Okamoto, the LBJ Library has scanned it, Bammesk has uploaded and restored it. A thoughtful composition with the Manhattan skyline as background, the desk parallel to it and the star-spangled banner at the right (too bad the flag does not fly in the wind ;–), the people are for the most part well-arranged. Okamoto manages to portray the signing of the Immigration Act as a combination of historical event and joyful social event. The technical quality is good (although I suppose a good technician could have brightened the faces of the people at the edge a little in the darkroom), the scan is OK. --Aristeas (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 15:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - grainy as anything, but... that's historical photography when it tries something. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical#1960-1970

File:The Kelpies 16-9 Stitch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2022 at 19:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors
Info The Kelpies are 30m high horse-head sculptures by Andy Scott. They depict kelpies (shape-shifting water spirits), and are located near Falkirk, Scotland next to an extension to the Forth and Clyde Canal. All by me. -- Colin (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inspired by the "exposure" sculpture below, I remembered this stitched photo I took of "The Kelpies". I went early so the view isn't mobbed with tourists in front (there's a couple walking along the canal path, for scale). While there are photos online with this lit up spectacularly, this daytime photo has 126 MP, so there's lots of resolution for you to zoom in to appreciate the sculpture in detail. -- Colin (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not the highest immediate "wow" factor, but an impressive amount of detail. The muted lighting does have one advantage: there are no blown-out reflections of the sun on the metal. You might consider cropping out the curb at the far left, which is a bit distracting and not really that effective as a leading line. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not outstanding light but definitely outstanding detail and image quality. Cmao20 (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Although I like that square crop even more. Daniel Case (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michielverbeek (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Very impressive sculpture, but unfortuantely a dull sky[reply]
Support per nom and Cmao20. The view of the sculptures is kind of overwhelming. I don't like the square crop more than this view, because there's too little room on the left in that version. For what it's worth, my preference would be to maintain the current crop on the left and crop just to the right of the "Stretch up your long necks to face the sun" sign, so as to exclude the motorway sign, which is slightly distracting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone seems to have their own crop ideas. Perhaps the advantage of this image, on Commons, is that people can make whatever crop variant they want. -- Colin (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A fascinating object but many distracting factors in the background.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 21:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors

File:Cayman curly-tailed lizard (Leiocephalus varius).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2022 at 22:39:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Leiocephalidae (Curly-tailed Lizards)
Info A high-resolution, sharp and well composed photo of a creature for which there are no FPs - and indeed no other photos of it at all on Commons and only a handful on the internet. created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice texture. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too bad part of the tail is not viewable, but not a close case to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is the red bug in the foreground a St. Andrew's Cotton Stainer (Dysdercus andreae) nymph? --GRDN711 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for the nomination. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Virtual-Pano (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Leiocephalidae (Curly-tailed Lizards)

File:Sumas Mountain panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2022 at 03:01:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Canada#British Columbia
Info: unsettled weather over Sumas Mountain. Something unconventional: I like the multiple layers of light, colours and shadows. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice but the balance could be better, the bottom crop is too tight IMHO Poco a poco (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Poco a Poco. --Aristeas (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 05:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Canada#British Columbia

File:Fishermen at work by Shagil Kannur.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2022 at 16:57:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another National Geographic-type image. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a rather stunnig image with too much noise and jpg artefacts (e.g. surf area) for a FP in my opinion --Virtual-Pano (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noise reduced. Shagil Kannur (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment changed from weak oppose to neutral after noise reducction --Virtual-Pano (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel, technical issues are not major IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love this photo, but I think Virtual-Pano has a good point. Any possibility of some work that would improve and not damage the image? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The horizon of the left is sea? Is it tilted--Lmbuga (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)?[reply]
Support--Adarshjchandran (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, beautiful light, an excellent balance in the photo, high artistic quality --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful photo despite some technical issues Cmao20 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Support now, but still support, per above comments. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tagooty (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 04:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#People at work

File:NJ-139 and I-78 Jersey City November 2021 002.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2022 at 07:13:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges#United States
Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really interesting idea that works. Great use of morning light to capture the inbound commute; I love the contrast between near bumper-to-bumper on the tunnel approach with that one car going WB. Great quality for a drone ... the Midtown skyline looks a little artificial, as does Newport to its right, but they're shrouded in haze so that explains it somewhat. Daniel Case (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good quality aerial photo with a nice composition but the hazy light does lack 'wow' a little for me. Cmao20 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I'm being too tough, but I'd like to see this motif photographed on a non-hazy day or perhaps closer to sunrise or something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I've liked some of your urban drone compositions, but the motif here just doesn't stand out for me, sorry to say. It does feel like a morning commute, but while that makes for a good documentary photo, I don't get "wow" from it. Perhaps I am biased from having been part of those commutes at times in my life. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 19:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pek Ikan. -- Karelj (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do agree with Ikan Kerek, the subject/compo is interesting but needs a better lighting to make it extraordinary Poco a poco (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking for a while at it it has grown for me. --Aristeas (talk) 09:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mexican vine snake.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2022 at 01:59:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Colubridae_(Colubrids)
Info: Mexican vine snake (Oxybelis aeneus), ~~no existing FP of the species~~; all by -- The Cosmonaut (

talk) 01:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: one existing FP of the species. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Creepy reptil and creepy picture--Lmbuga (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really sharp, sorry, at 6 MP I would expect better pixel-level detail. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH. Sorry.--Ermell (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness is fine for me Cmao20 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not as sharp as the existing FP but better lighting and background. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the head, mainly the top of the head. I haven't decided whether I think that makes it an FP or not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Better if a little more breathing space on the left. --Shagil Kannur (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Shagil Kannur, it's too tight. Can you explain a bit the history behind the shot? is it a wild animal in a park where it can move freely or is the movement restricted? Poco a poco (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken at an ecological reserve with no infrastructure; the snake is a wild animal not restricted in any way. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good The Cosmonaut, is there any chance to get a bit more of crop to the left? --Poco a poco (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, but there is a bunch of rather unsightly twigs to the left, which is the reason for this crop. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lotje (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 06:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Colubridae_(Colubrids)

File:Greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus) resting.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2022 at 07:55:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phoenicopteridae (Flamingos)
Info A flamingo rests its neck muscles by placing its head onto its back. It tucks the bill into its feathers and stands on one leg - both actions conserve heat. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remarkable image. I'm guessing the things that look like possible dust or water spots on the upper left are not. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just stuff on the sand of the lagoon. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Lmbuga (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 15:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea is nice but the execution not. These aren't rare birds nor unusual behaviour and an image whose purpose was illustrating the behaviour would be closer (if you look at the Wikipedia article that uses this, the birds are tiny white blobs on a pink stalk and you can't really make out what is going on at all). Artistically/photographically, the bottom third where the water is rough ruins it, two of the birds are blurred, and they are all still just a little small in the frame. A simpler frame with bigger, fewer birds, blurred background and still water reflections would have worked better. There's just a bit too much rough sand and rough water and not enough flamingo. -- Colin (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Nice idea but I wish all the flamingos were in focus. Cmao20 (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support having read again the justification for the nomination, shows the birds' behaviour quite well, and because the nomination is currently right on the pass/fail border and I think it deserves to pass. Cmao20 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not special enough. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see here reason, for FP nomination. -- Karelj (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above Poco a poco (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 19:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 21:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Phoenicopteridae (Flamingos)

File:Exposure ('De hurkende man') Lelystad. 07-03-2022. (d.j.b) 04.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2022 at 16:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Statues_outdoors
Info Exposure ('The squatting man') Artwork by Antony Gormley. Location: Markerstrekdam, Lelystad. (Experimental color processing.)
All by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WB seems very green. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per FP guideines on "Digital manipulations". You need to declare on the file description page that this has had a colour filter / processing-effect applied to it. (we don't require that for b&w because that's so obvious, but here the viewer might wonder if there had been some strange pollution in the sky that day.) Ideally, I'd recommend the filename mentioned this too, just to avoid someone picking it accidentally. I see you have this image which is similar and with natural processing. I'm not really seeing the point of the colour processing here, especially since you had perfectly lovely weather. -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment. I would have done this edit as an experiment, but maybe it was a bit overconfident.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of its success/failure at FPC, you should still add a "retouched" template or similar, per our educational purpose. -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Oppose I'm not really seeing FP in this 9MP image of a huge sculpture, which seems much like a photo anyone might take on a sunny day there. The angle isn't best (compare your 01 photo where you can see the feet and head better). The detail and lighting aren't wowing me. -- Colin (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not so sure about this photo, but I would support the one linked by Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support edit only, the white balance does seem too green to me in the other one. This one maybe doesn't have outstanding light but it's nice and sunny and the quality of the motif outweighs it, sometimes 'I want to see this interesting place featured' is enough when the photo is also good quality and well composed Cmao20 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin; might work centered but like this feels a little unbalanced for no real reason. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With this photo I wanted to let the lock complex come out from under the man's seat.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Cmao20 --Llez (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fósil de erizo de mar (Pentremites godoni), Waterloo, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2021-01-18, DD 081-136 FS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2022 at 17:48:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals#Phylum_:_Echinodermata
Info Focused stacked image (55 frames) of a sea urchin fossil (Pentremites godoni), Waterloo, Illinois, USA. The diameter of the fossil is 4 centimetres (1.6 in) and it dates from the Serpuikhovian period (Upper Mississipian), approximately 325 million years old. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great resolution. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, this time the light has a lot more depth and contrast so the end result is a lot more attractive. Cmao20 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking image. --Tagooty (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Startus (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 01:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Phylum_:_Echinodermata

File:2022-02-20 Wintersport, FIL-Weltcup im Rennrodeln auf der Naturbahn Mariazell 1DX 4084 by Stepro.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2022 at 13:34:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Sports#Other team sports
Info created & uploaded by Stepro - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this pic! --Stepro (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would prefer a shot where the luge is racing on the track. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is luging on natural track, so the sled is racing on track. It is a training run, but that doesn't make a real difference. Because of weather conditions there were only a training run and one ranked run. --Stepro (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question What are we viewing? Are they about to start a race, or are they having a problem with balance? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the race in a curve after about 2/3 of the track. On natural track it is quite normal to steer this way. --Stepro (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Sometimes you get some pretty good shots from athletes training as oppose to competing. This is a dynamic image of the two lugers trying to steady their sled near the edge of the ice rather than lying calmly on their sled mid-track with everything behind them blurred, like ... almost every luge pic you'd get in competition. Daniel Case (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 10:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 11:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo, now that I know what I'm looking at. You might explain what's going on a bit more in your file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Interesting but size+detail is not the best Poco a poco (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports#Other team sports

File:Schneebedeckte Pappel-Schüpplinge (Hemipholiota populnea)-20201204-RM-154343.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2022 at 10:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Fungi#Family : Strophariaceae
Info Snow-covered hollyhock sponges (Hemipholiota populnea) growing out of the trunk of a felled poplar tree. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 10:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb resolution and detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tagooty (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi#Family : Strophariaceae

File:Green Tree Python juvenile A22I6572.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2022 at 18:19:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Pythonidae_(Pythons)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 18:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent capture! -- Radomianin (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shagil Kannur (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Banana -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family_:_Pythonidae_(Pythons)

File:Nathan Francis Mossell (1856-1946), M.D. 1882, portrait photograph by H.D. Carns & Co; Image ID 27593990.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2022 at 13:43:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by H.D. Carns & Co. - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo, important person. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:CZE-22-Czechoslovak National Bank-50 Korun (1929).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2022 at 10:16:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Money
Info created by TB, Prague (for the Czech Republic) and Alphonse Mucha - uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, a banknote with Alphonse Mucha designs, and in very good reproduction. --Aristeas (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support well prepared --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Others#Money

File:Billy Bowlegs (Holata Micco, "Alligator Chief").jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2022 at 20:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/People#Other_portraits
Info After Julian Vannerson, restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden, with assistance from Charles J. Sharp -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful lithograph in great condition. What did you do to restore it? Also, do you mean to nominate Charlesjsharp's version? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Alan's computer was playing up and distorting the colours. Charlesjsharp (

talk) 21:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. You sound like my father (who has a brother named Alan) when you call me Alan. But, aye. GIMP was being weird about colour profiles so I asked Charles for help. Then left him out of the nomination text, which I'll fix now. As for what I did: Primarily it was dirt, spot, and thumbprint removal and a slight brightening. Lots of edge fixes - it got quite dark at the edge. Nothing too surprising. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just remembering that famous story about Alan and Eve and some snake and an apple. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cmao20 (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Startus (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 04:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/People#Other_portraits

File:Verschiedenfarbige Schwertlilie (Iris versicolor)-20200603-RM-100257.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2022 at 06:56:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Iridaceae
Info created and uploaded by Ermell - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nom.--Ermell (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Startus (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. -- Radomianin (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 20:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Famberhorst (talk) 05:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The plant is more similar to the North American Iris versicilor. Definitely not Iris sibirica. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the hint. I think you are right because the sibirica stadands next to it in my garden.--Ermell (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Assuming we can id it properly, very nice delicate light Poco a poco (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales#Family : Iridaceae

File:Eucomis montana (Ananas lelie). 06-08-2020 (d.j.b.) 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2022 at 16:31:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Asparagales#Family : Asparagaceae
Info Flowers and buds of an Eucomis montana (Pineapple lily). Focus stack of 12 photos.
all by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if you can re-stack, but although the flowers at top and bottom are sharp, the ones in the middle are not in focus. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Re-edited. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The flowers are pretty small, aren't they? You might mention their approximate size in your file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: the plant is currently dormant, so I can only measure again in the summer, but I estimate ~10 mm.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Startus (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Gallery link fixed – the Asparagaceae family is on the special Asparagales gallery page. --Aristeas (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay 💬 20:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Lmbuga (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Asparagales#Family : Asparagaceae

File:Greater flamingos (Phoenicopterus roseus) Bahrain.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2022 at 10:50:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Phoenicopteridae (Flamingos)
Info A different idea. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Would be better if the subjects were not intersecting.--Shagil Kannur (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the intersecting is intentional (if not popular)! Charlesjsharp (talk)

Oppose Sorry, this is another "nearly there". They don't appear to be interacting, just one randomly walking past the other. -- Colin (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Karelj (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am fine with the 'intersection' of the two flamingos, there's something about the shapes they enclose with their beaks that makes it a satisfying composition Cmao20 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Cmao, although I think it could be cropped more tightly on them. However, I am not sure if it would still be large enough, so I am not making a note showing the crop. Daniel Case (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above I miss something here, e.g. a golden hour light Poco a poco (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support More even sharpness on the birds than in the two previous candidates. Regarding the composition I am with Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, with much better sharpening that the previous nominations from this batch. Personally I would crop a sliver on the left, so that both birds are at an equal distance from the edge --Julesvernex2 (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Phoenicopteridae (Flamingos)

File:St Edmundsbury Cathedral Choir 1, Suffolk, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2022 at 14:18:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom
Info An extremely high resolution (93 mpx), detailed and beautiful church photo by Diliff. The nave, a very different view, is already FP. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tagooty (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 20:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Lmbuga (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Startus (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Famberhorst (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would clone out the women --Llez (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Removing her would be an option, but on the other hand how many viewers are going to spot her? --Virtual-Pano (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spotted her, but her presence in the photo was OK with me. This isn't some closed-off historical relic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I saw her before reading your comments, and would have definitely cloned her, it's an easy spot to do so Poco a poco (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per the woman, yes she is fairly noticeable if you zoom in, but she's not very distracting from the main subject and per Ikan, this building is a focal point for the area and there's no reason to expect it to be empty. Also it's Diliff's picture and I think if he had wanted to clone her out he'd have done so, I wouldn't want to present an alternative version of one of his photos unless it was a really obvious, uncontroversial change. In any case, the photo has passed now by five-day rule, so thanks for all support. Cmao20 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings#United Kingdom

File:Llyn Ogwen Milky Way.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2022 at 21:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy#Sky
Info created & uploaded by Woyoyboy - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Watermark in the bottom right needs to be removed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending removal of watermark. Support now. I think the crop in the alt is a little too tight. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I uploaded a new version without the watermark but keeping the original crop. The original crop looks better to me than the alt version. I didn't rework the noise or anything else, which is high but still acceptable to me to grant the image the FP star. Poco a poco (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that the watermark is removed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both versions. --IamMM (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version. -- Radomianin (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Minor technical flaws are forgivable for such a difficult photo. --Aristeas (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good addition to the Gallery --Tagooty (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. alt is cropped too tightly for me as well --Virtual-Pano (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alt[edit]

Support added new cropped version. Tomer T (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC) Voted for the wrong version. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy#Sky

The chosen alternative is: File:Llyn Ogwen Milky Way.jpg

File:Fósil de coral (Montlivaltia obconica), Nattheim, Alemania, 2021-01-15, DD 681-736 FS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2022 at 12:31:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Bones_and_fossils
Info Focused stacked image (25 frames the left view and 31 the right view) of an extinct coral fossil (Montlivaltia obconica), Nattheim, Germany. The diameter of the fossil is 6 centimetres (2.4 in) and it dates from the Late Jurassic period, approximately 150 million years old. c/u/n by Poco a poco (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose two shots had uneven light conditions and it's visible on the background in the middle, dark "halo" made by stacking program is around the fossil on both sides, the fossil is covered with dust fibres. --Ivar (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. Also, why are you telling us, at FPC, about the photo technique, the size of the specimen, and the fact that this is two views of the same. As a repository of educational images, this info should be on the file description page for users of Commons. I think it would be better if at least one of the view was mounted such that it would be in real life, rather than lying on its side (from what I can tell from looking at other images). -- Colin (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very good sharpness and resolution given the small size of the object, but I agree about the unevenness of the light. Cmao20 (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per the technical issues Ivar points to. Daniel Case (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I cleaned the coral before the shot, I couldn't remove some remaining fabric (somehow hanging in the tiny blades of the fossil, did use the same ligthing conditions, halo is an issue, indeed, but I don't feel motivated to fix that or other issues, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poco a poco (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deuterocohnia lorentziana in Botanischer Garten Muenster (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2022 at 18:42:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Order_:_Poales
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose I'd want a little stronger color, but that's not necessary; it's fine as it is. Daniel Case (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Daniel Cmao20 (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. Interesting natural pattern. --Aristeas (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality image, but I do not see any reason fo PR nominatinon. There are thousands images similar to this one, part of some plant and whar....???? -- Karelj (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dead stuff and bare bits ruin it. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Nothing attention-catching in this image. --Tagooty (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a QI in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 00:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Noctua pronuba caterpillar defensive - Keila.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2022 at 13:20:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Noctuidae_(Owlet_Moths)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tournasol7 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. That's another little creature, isn't it? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment body length (37 mm) added to file description. --Ivar (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --IamMM (talk) 04:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question How come it is on the underside of the leaf? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp: this is a home studio photo, the leaf is chosen background. --Ivar (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I think I must oppose Oppose ~~as it is not as in nature.~~ I don't like the 'studio' composition which uses an upside-down leaf. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp: imho this not a valid reason to oppose. Which FPC rule says, that photo has to look like taken in the nature? --Ivar (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my reason for oppose, Ivar; no intention to use an invalid reason. Nothing wrong with moving the caterpillar, but the man-handling has produced the 'defensive' position, rather than a natural predator, which is not ideal. Many caterpillar species curl up and play dead. Could an alternative in your studio have been to let it acclimatise then take the photo. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family_:_Noctuidae_(Owlet_Moths)

File:Santa Maria of Loreto church and Holy Name of Mary church in Rome (a).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2022 at 18:38:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Italy
Info all by Tournasol7 -- Tournasol7 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain As author. Tournasol7 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks a bit washed out; consider raising the intensity of the blacks. Also, I find File:Santa Maria of Loreto church and Holy Name of Mary church in Rome.jpg to be a bit more atmospheric. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both photos are nice and peaceful, but I prefer the other photo, too. Might it be offered as an alternate? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose They both still look a little washed-out. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Italy
Info The alternative proposed per others. Tournasol7 (talk) 06:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe it could do with a bit more contrast, but it’s also beautiful as it is. --Aristeas (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Startus (talk) 12:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aristeas. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Italy

The chosen alternative is: File:Santa Maria of Loreto church and Holy Name of Mary church in Rome.jpg

File:Spiralbinderücken -- 2022 -- 9739 (bw).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2022 at 20:52:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Others
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 20:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 20:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DoF is too short for my taste. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support DoF is more than enough for my taste. -- KennyOMG (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting idea successfully executed. Daniel Case (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek--Lmbuga (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel. --Aristeas (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not struck by it, but in any case it should be symmetrical at the bottom. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an easy task. I tried with it with the same number of pages each side and it doesn't work. The cover isn't symmetrical, the holes of the paper aren't symmetrical and so on. I think, it should be possible with another notebook or computer-generated. Sorry. --XRay 💬 15:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. -- Karelj (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 17:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ikan Kekek. --Tagooty (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 06:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 00:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Others

File:Svjatlana Cichanouská, Praha, 7.6.2021.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2022 at 22:42:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People
Info created by Jindřich Nosek - uploaded by Jindřich Nosek - nominated by Illegitimate Barrister -- – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 22:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It is below the absolute minimum size of 2 megapixels. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] 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.

Comment - @Ikan Kekek: Fixed, is now 2 megapixels. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 01:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why have a head in the background? Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Illegitimate Barrister: I see that you uploaded the new version, rather than the original uploader. How did you obtain the higher-resolution file? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Are you staying with the version that's below the minimum size for consideration here? Even at that size, though, it's not very sharp or outstandingly lit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Vented Bulbul IIT Mandi Himachal Mar20 D72 14359.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2022 at 02:23:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Pycnonotidae_(Bulbuls)
Info created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rear view showing the red vent, and also the head with crest. There are no FPs of this species, only 3 FPs of other bulbuls. -- Tagooty (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Head not in focus. I naturally prefer this one. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Charles, sorry but I agree the head is not in focus here. Cmao20 (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Charles, and technical issues that make the feather tips look subpar. Daniel Case (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Importantly, the rear view focusses attention on the red-vent of the bulbul. DoF covers the tip of the tail to the neck (~10-12 cm). At common viewing sizes, the softness of the head is incidental. The more common frontal and side views of such birds require DoF of only 3-5 cm, technically easier to achieve. In hindsight, I could have used f/11-16. --Tagooty (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Those common frontal and side views wouldn't be likely to be featured here in 2022, I think. I get what you aimed for, but I don't think the red-vent is outstandingly sharp itself. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose head unsharp. Tomer T (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback. --Tagooty (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common greenshank (Tringa nebularia) Bahrain.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2022 at 10:33:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Tringa
Info No FPs of this common migrant. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support ----Lmbuga (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be nice to also see a version of this photo with a complete reflection of the bird, if there is one, but I think this is an excellent composition. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't include the whole bird reflection, but the ripples mean there is little to see. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Startus (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support And a lot of interesting shells! Pirenella conica? --Llez (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are they the funny conical things he/she is stamping on with absolutely no concern for leading shell collectors?! Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Attractive posture, high quality. --Tagooty (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus : Tringa

File:Theyyam of Kerala by Shagil Kannur 05.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2022 at 07:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Events
Info Theyyam (Teyyam, Theyam or Theyyattam) is a popular ritual form of dance worship in Kerala.

All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did we feature a similar image? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but quite different design.--Shagil Kannur (talk) 09:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be kind of you to link the previously-featured image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly see this FP -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks. First, yes, this is a sufficiently different photo to feature. But second, look how much bigger the other file is. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had to crop to avoid unnecessary objects. --Shagil Kannur (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK, and I do like this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Busy background, tight crop, small resolution --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained. Please reconsider Uoaei1 -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support but the other FP is better IMO, the background is cleaner Cmao20 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop of the ear. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely not ideal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you understand the busy situation. As a ritual worship art, it is impossible to interfere in to the their activities. Shagil Kannur (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do, but that's not an argument for why this is one of the very best photos on Commons. I voted for it, but is there an important reason why you couldn't add the rest of his ear? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your other photos, this does give the impression of a performance for tourists rather than 'ritual worship'. Your photos would certainly have been considered 'interfering' if that was an issue. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There can be a lot of overlap between rituals and performances for tourists. For example, lots of tourists watch wayang kulit in Bali, which retells tales from the Ramayana; is preceded by a blessing of all the puppets, performers and audience with incense; and requires harmony to be restored at the end of the night, partly in the form of putting the tree puppets (the name of the symbolic tree slips my mind) back into the middle of the screen. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I agreed with you. Now please check--Shagil Kannur (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improved and oppose withdrawn (although the hair is cropped at top), but the background doesn't earn a support vote I'm afraid. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely better. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --MZaplotnik^(talk) 06:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 15:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:FCAB GT22CU 2402 and 2401 San Pedro - Ascotan.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2022 at 13:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created & uploaded by David Gubler – nominated by Ivar (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 13:47, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we do not need three FPs of the same train. I should have checked FP gallery. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We have two FPs of this particular train already: File:FCAB GT22CU 2401 and 2402 with Cerro Ascotan.jpg and File:FCAB GT22CU-3 2402 and 2401 at Cebollar.jpg. This one snakes a bit, but so do many other of these train photos and this isn't a patch on File:FCAB GT22CU 2405, 2401 and GL26C 2005 Cumbre - Pampa.jpg, which is the same railway. The landscape is mostly boring, the sky is boring, there are a couple of dark diesel clouds which are ugly, and the light casts a black shadow. Sure, it is better than anything I might take, but it isn't among the finest on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally disagree with your opinion that the landscape here is "mostly boring". This landscape is imho very special and the whole compo with morning light and the train is exceptionally good. --Ivar (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The composition isn't as interesting as the other two photos, especially File:FCAB GT22CU-3 2402 and 2401 at Cebollar.jpg. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Colin, and the tail of the train is unfortunately shadowed and IMO this does not make the photo special for me --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one better than the others, though there may be a little too much sky. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Michielverbeek and Colin. --Tagooty (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the shadow --A.Savin 04:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, it's the same train, but the landscape is different, and I like its starkness. —Bruce1ee^talk 07:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bruce1ee Cmao20 (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin -- Karelj (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Istanbul asv2021-10 img11 Yıldız Hamidiye Mosque.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2022 at 01:13:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Turkey
Info Dome interior of the Yıldız Hamidiye Mosque Istanbul; all by me. --A.Savin 01:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 01:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great to me. I thought maybe there was another FP of this mosque, but I don't see any. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Startus (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know they're a small part of the overall image but could something be done about the nearly blown areas where the sunlight is shining on the dome wall? Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably no. --A.Savin 14:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then.

Weak support It's still good enough overall. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning! -- Radomianin (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Was cropping the chandelier intentional and forced by the space available/lens used? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support From the composition point of view it is quite tricky with all main object apart from the dome cropped, along with the perspective, but I agree, it works Poco a poco (talk) 12:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tagooty (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious buildings/Ceilings#Turkey

File:Syrphus torvus macro 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2022 at 23:58:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Family : Syrphidae (Hoverflies)
Info Handheld stack of 3 picture of the head of Syrphus torvus, magnification of 2.5:1, all by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredibly impressive, I don't know how one manages to handhold this Cmao20 (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, especially for the compound eye. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dinkum (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hand holding a 2.5x magnification focus stack is impressive, but I don't think the result is on par with other macro shots we've seen here. The image is somewhat soft and oversharpened, the flash has overexposed several areas, and there are a few stacking errors (e.g. in the compound eye). --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are there stacking errors in the eye? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I've marked them. Is 3 images too few? I'm not familiar wich this type of shot. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another one, which may indeed have been caused by a gap in the stack. Assuming that the eye eye has a depth of about 1mm, 3 images are enough if the lens is stepped down to f16. However, at a magnification of 2.5x this means that the effective aperture is f56, well into diffraction territory. Using an aperture of f2.8 (f9.8 effective aperture) would produce significantly sharper results, but would require about 20 shots to get the entire eye in focus ([1]) --Julesvernex2 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp, thanks for marking the stacking errors. They're subtle to me, especially on top, and I feel like it's still an FP, but of course I respect your opposition from a position of expertise. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Julesvernex2 and Charles --Ermell (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. --Ivar (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Urraca (Pica pica), Almuradiel, Ciudad Real, España, 2021-12-19, DD 20.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2022 at 23:02:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Corvidae_(Crows,_Jays_and_Magpies)
Info Eurasian magpie (Pica pica), Almuradiel, Ciudad Real, Spain. It's a resident breeding bird throughout the northern part of the Eurasian continent. This species is believed to be one of the most intelligent of all non-human animals. The expansion of its nidopallium is approximately the same in its relative size as the brain of chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans. It is the only bird known to pass the mirror test, along with very few other non-avian species. Poco a poco (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture of one of my favorite bird! These are hard to get well on camera due to the contrast of their feathers, well done. A tiny bit of purple fringing under the wing that could easily be corrected. --Alexis Lours (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This shot is tighter than the snake (see lower down the nomination page), though it is the tail that is too close to the edge rather than the head! Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Charlesjsharp I can offer more crop on both sides but although this nom has nothing to do with the one you refer to, I don't necessarily see the need for more crop on the left here because the magpie is looking down and not to the left like the snake. I'll upload a new version this evening and also address Alexis's comment. Poco a poco (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this version is quite soft in the head. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesjsharp, Alexis Lours: New version uploaded to address your comments. Poco a poco (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! --Alexis Lours (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Much better crop, but still noisy and soft unfortunately. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Weird fringing around the whole thing, but not very serious. Daniel Case (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but too soft. --Tagooty (talk) 06:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tagooty: Please, bear in mind that I'm offering here 30 MPx, not 6 MPx as is usual in this kind of shots Poco a poco (talk) 07:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I downsized to 6 MPx and it is still soft and grainy. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Poco a poco: 7 MB is rather small for a 30 MP image. I wonder if it was accidentally saved with low jpg quality? --Tagooty (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagooty 7 MB small? how do you come to this conclusion? the bokeh makes 2/3 of the image and there is no detail there. Those things are decisive for the file size. I do restrict the file size to 12 MB, not the quality and this image is far below 12 MB. I tested this topic intensively with my camera and had this discussion on Commons before. I spent some time to check the topic with my camera files. The same applies to others (the threshold could though vary), when I see a 30 MB file out of a 24 MPx camera I just shake my head Poco a poco (talk) 07:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was going by my observations of 15-20 MB for 24 MP images from Nikon D7200 and Sony A7C. Granted large uniform areas will reduce size. Tagooty (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Processing sofware can change MB. Topaz Denoise typically increases file size though, as Poco says, aggressive denoise of the background will cut MB dramatically. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I bet this has already been discussed here, but there's no discernible quality increase when using very low JPEG compression settings ([2]). Standardising compression settings could save a ton of money that the Wikimedia Foundation could use elsewhere? --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I saved an FP quality out-of-camera JPG image (4.62MB) as Photoshop CS6 quality Medium 6 (12 is best) and you can hardly tell the difference (new size 699MB). It would still be FP. Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is an archive and so disc space isn't really a problem compared to preserving the image. When Wikipedia serves up a thumbnail (i.e. anything downsized) it delivers a highly compressed version over the internet. That said, using 100% Lightroom (or 12/12 Photoshop) is pointless and better to choose 90% (11/12). Going lower can sometimes fail to capture fine detail, not that this image has any. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Charles, very good light conditions though. --Ivar (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alexis. --Aristeas (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support When downscaled to 3,200 pixels wide, perceived detail seems similar to this image. Diego, nevertheless I think the image would benefit from denoising the background, and from adding additional background to the right (so that the bird's tail is not so close to the edge) and to the top (to have a more standard aspect ratio). --Julesvernex2 (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Julesvernex2: Done, thank you! Poco a poco (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm quite perplexed by the support. It is a very ordinary image of a very common bird and someone has smeared Vaseline over the lens to give it some kind of low contrast soft focus boudoir technique used to hide the wrinkles in middle aged clients. There is no feather detail on this bird, just blotches of different colour. This looks like an upsized 2MP. Alexis Lours, your File:Eurasian magpie (Pica pica).jpg] (8.5MP) is far superior in every way. -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also quite perplexed that after so many years people like me still contribute with dedication (not to mention time and money) to this project in spite of users like Colin, wo invest most of their time not in contributing but in attacking, being rude and in fact insulting. When I read messages with that package I cannot even look into the content. If I had a company and would treat my employees like this, I'm be alone latest after one week. Poco a poco (talk) 18:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, you are welcome to contribute images to Commons with dedication, time and money. You can do that without nominating images at FPC and making personal attacks when they get criticised. Really, if you are a delicate soul, then stop nominating, and keep happy contributing your images. But whenever any one of us nominates our own images at FPC we are arrogantly declaring "Look what I created! Isn't it just among the very finest there is on Commons! I offer it here for your admiration and glowing support. Please feed my ego!" Poco, seriously, this photo is what I'd send to Canon with a warranty claim for lens defects. If you don't like reading negative reviews, and want uncritical praise, show your photos to your mum or your wife, whatever. But if you nominate a blurry noisy glare-filled boring static image of a common-as-dirt magpie staring at the ground, then I'll call it out. Meh. I wouldn't even upload this, never mind boast to the world that it is "among the finest on Commons" and get all cry-baby when someone says it isn't. -- Colin (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally wrong, and anyone who knows me would confirm that. I can bear criticism, I don't feel need to show my pics to my mum to confirm myself. The problem is the way you treat people here and that "scent" of arrogance in all your comments. After all these years, please, don't pretend that your judgement is fair after you see who is the author. The ugly packaging of your comments along with your attacks and biased voting result in steril reviews in my eyes. Poco a poco (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly a big fan of the angle, the colors and the posture of the bird, which might have led me to overlook some imperfections in the file. Yes, the sharpness is not as good as it could be, but I also feel like quite a few people underestimate how hard these birds are to get well on picture too. --Alexis Lours (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Pica pica photo needs to show the beautiful blue on the wings, which this one does not. My photo is too soft to be FP and is a boring composition. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to judge the finest on Commons, not give stars out of sympathy. We have better bird-in-flight photos than this soft noisy on-the-ground picture of an extremely common bird, so I don't really buy any excuse that this was difficult to get right. Aside from the excellent JJ Harrison's work, take yourself off to Category:Featured pictures by Rhododendrites and examine crisp, detailed high resolution photos with engagine composition and good light. That's someone who only took up photography recently and is using a m43 camera, not some top-of-the-range full frame. It is this sort of "easy pass for the regulars" FPC that discredits the whole process. -- Colin (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poor image, but one reason why Poco a poco is so upset is because of the inflammatory reviews by Colin. Colin winds us up by belittling our work. He frequently votes oppose, but virtually never supports. Can I suggest Poco a poco that you come over to England and visit the Tower of London. Why not photograph a couple of ravens so you can challenge for POTY. Put the wrong lens on your camera so you have to crop the image. Choose F7.1/ISO 100 to make sure that one bird is way out of focus. Move your point of view so that you achieve a really disturbing background then take your snap. If you win, you will earn the right to pontificate on the art of wildlife photogrpahy for years to come. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those confused by the Tower of London reference, Charles is referring to Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Odin and Thor, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30a.jpg, an image of mine from five years ago that both Poco a Poco and Charles opposed. It went on to win first place in Commons:Picture of the Year/2016, a shock that it seems Charles hasn't recovered from. What a sense of entitlement demonstrated here: How dare someone who won POTY with a funny tourist snapshot criticise us? Charles, you say "this is a poor image", and you are an experienced wildlife photographer, so it is kinda weird that you then just make a personal attack on me in order to discredit my judgement that you agree with. But this "poor photo" currently has 12 support and 4 oppose so is well on its way to featured status. Which really is taking a big dump on all the genuinely excellent featured wildlife photos. That's what stinks here. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I'm sometimes confused with Charles reviews, leaving comments but not reacting to improvements on the images. Still ok to me because Charles is a tough reviewer overall and consistent with his feedback. I do accept his criticisms and try to improve the image based on them as he articulates it in a manner I can understand and accept them. This is the same for all over reviewers here, and ther are many, but Colin is the big exception. Along with a review he always feels the need, specially when it comes to my noms, to try to discredit me and my work. Be tough in criticism if you like, that's your good right, but be fair and respectful to fellow Commoners. That's all I ask for and I didn't receive for many years now. --Poco a poco (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, all you ask for is that people support your photos so your ego gets a boost. Do you think nobody has noticed? -- Colin (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking away and changing the topic is the easiest way to ignore your problem. Keep being rude as you have always been. I was really happy to get my first FPs prometed a bunch of years ago, agree, but approaching 800 FPs now that excitement is gone. And still I'd like to celebrate someday the 1,000 FPs with you (or rather in spite of you) here on Commons. --Poco a poco (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the thing right there. You want 1000 FPs and think I'm here to spite that. It doesn't enter your head to think what you are doing to help others get their FPs or how much work other people have to invest of their time for you to get there. Poco a poco, do you have any idea how many of your FPs I've commented on, where you have improved the image as a result, and achieved not only an FP but a better photograph as a result? No, you really don't. Wilfredor complains when I don't give him negative reviews, as that's how he sees him becoming better as a photographer. If you take a photo of a fossil in rubbish lighting or are sloppy in your focus stacked editing, which is better? That you churn out another 20 meh FPs with uncritical support, or that you go read a book on lighting, or work harder on your photoshoping and stacking technique? When you nominated that 3MP blurry shark photo, do you think it was better that nobody said anything and we had a crap FP, or that you uploaded/inserted a much better image instead. This isn't primary school where teacher's job is to encourage your infant brain with praise. I did a quick search of our nominations that I collected back when I collected stats recently. You have reviewed precisely 17 of my featured picture nominations, and I've reviewed over 174 of yours. Of those, I can see 76 oppose and 65 support, the rest comments or neutral. That's a 43% oppose rate and your overall failure rate at FPC is 40%. So I'm not actually out of step with the community. Bet that surprised you. I have reviewed 10 times as many of your images than you have of mine, and supported at least 65 of them. Yet in all that work, which I and hundreds of others have put in to helping you get your featured pictures, you write like I'm personally here to prevent you getting any. Could your comments be more ungrateful and entitled? -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to you is like talking to a wall. Surely I can improve a picture or any skills if I get constructive criticism, from you and from many others but when you cover your criticism with attacks and disrespectul comments I don't care to understand when you say. In your case the effect is the opposite. You discourage me to upload images, improve them or even take my camera and go out, but who cares. Bye. Poco a poco (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, looking at the EXIF, you've used a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM along with a 2x extender. That's a lens introduced in 1997, the era of film, coupled with a 2x extender which is widely known to degrade image quality, mounted onto a modern camera with one of the most demanding sensors ever made. This antique is not going to produce acceptable results in 2022, and explains why I reckon you've got about 2MP of detail that just looks a hazy glary mess at 30MP. We have much much more detailed 6MP images at FP and the quality of bird compositions has improved in recent years too. What is continually frustrating, is that reviewers who actually bother to judge the image properly, and compare it to our existing FPs and repository, and who dare to oppose because it is quite frankly a dreadfully bad quality bird photo, get personal attacks and childish blackmail. -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very balanced voting record, Colin. Perhaps I too only remember your opposes, not your supports. Do you have the same type of voting stats for my FP noms (and my voting on yours), please? It would be good to stop fighting. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. I rather agree with Colin. The eye is not really in focus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. -- Karelj (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose certainly sub par compared to other birdies FPs, even considering the size. I'd blame the issues on the post processing (sharpening, NR) mainly. - Benh (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm Colin might have a point regarding the quality of the lens. So maybe reprocessing it won't help. - Benh (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunrise in Crete dell'Orcia.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2022 at 07:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Tuscany
Info created and uploaded by Ciorophotoproject - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tagooty (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful landscape with impressive light. (It’s just a pity that there are no coordinates. I could bet that I know this view from my visit in 2001, but I can’t remember where exactly on the map it was ... ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 13:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't want to be a lone opposer, but I think there's too much fairly static sky in the composition. If 2/3 or maybe half of the sky were cropped out, I'd be likely to support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ikan Kekek: In this version about 2/3 of the sky is cropped. If you think it's OK, please tell me so I can put it as an alternative. --IamMM (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IamMM, thanks for taking the time to make and upload that edit. The sky remains a bit featureless, but I do like that composition better and would vote for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added as an alternative. I invite @Vulphere, Cmao20, Michielverbeek, Radomianin, Daniel Case, Famberhorst, Tagooty, Martin Falbisoner, Schnobby, Aristeas, Agnes Monkelbaan, and Llez: to consider the new version. --IamMM (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I prefer the original version. In the alt, the sky is too featureless for my taste. --Tagooty (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay 💬 20:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Italy#Tuscany
Support --IamMM (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steven Sun (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The original I like more but this version is very pleasant, too. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin. --Aristeas (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I prefer the original Cmao20 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Radomianin.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 06:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The sky is still bothering me, and the land is still pleasing me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer this version Poco a poco (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I prefer the original. --Tagooty (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/Italy#Tuscany

The chosen alternative is: File:Sunrise in Crete dell'Orcia.jpg

File:Wildlife Conservation Issue 8c 1971 U.S. stamps.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2022 at 10:10:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media/Others#Stamps
Info created by Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Designed by Stanley W. Galli. - uploaded by MrFrosty2 - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it legal these days to use images of US postage stamps? Used to be illegal. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the template in the file, seems to be legal up to 1978. --Andrei (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the stamps. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose He was a well-known illustrator, but he should have given the poor alligator~~its fifth toe and~~ proper eyes. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did notice that the alligator image was the weakest, but I wouldn't oppose on that basis. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a former collector of US stamps, this is a well-known design error. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should he have five toes? Alligators have only four toes (but five fingers, which are not visible here for they are under water) --Llez (talk) 13:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my error on the toes. The recognised stamp design error was because of the design of the toes, not the number. Silly me. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Others#Stamps

File:Fiore di albicocco, leggermente rovinato dalla brinata.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2022 at 16:52:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Rosaceae
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by [[User:{{subst:PROPOLI87}}|]] -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apricot blossom, slightly marred by frost. Unfortunately, with the change in the climate on earth, early flowering of fruit trees occurs, which is then caught by the frost due to the cold and then compromising the fruits.

I photographed because I find it beautiful in its imperfection, as it also happens to people — Preceding unsigned comment added by PROPOLI87 (talk • contribs)

Oppose Right, but what do you think makes this not-very-sharp, noisy photo with distracting background one of the very best photos on the site? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC) *

Commentthe flowers in the photo have blossomed on the trunk, so the trunk is the background. A strong wind is blowing and it was impossible to photograph other flowers of the same tree on the branches, with a sky background, which would have been better User:PROPOLI87[reply]

Comment First, that you weren't able to do better is not an explanation of how this is one of the best photos on the site. Second, part of the background that's distracting is the strong light on the right and left, though all the yellow flowers (?) are also distracting. Third, it's very hard to get photos of sufficient quality (sharpness, lack of noise) to pass at featured picture candidates with a cellphone. It's been done, but this is not an example of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)* CommentOK, sorry, I didn't understand. Yellow are not flowers, but are lichens grown on the trunk. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC) :* CommentAnd anyway I justified the fact that it was blowing wind because I wanted to propose an imperfect flower, but now any other photo of this flower has become unrepeatable. Among other things, the wind has already blown away all the petals. I apologize again. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)PROPOLI87(⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gallery link fixed. Your friendly gallery link service ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
-thank you (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan and the light conditions were not favorable. --Ivar (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I quite like the colours and the light but the image quality is very low for FP, the sharpness is quite poor and to be really honest I wonder how it can have passed QI Cmao20 (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Resedafalter am Morgen im Gegenlicht.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2022 at 17:41:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)
Info IMO one of the most beautiful butterfly pictures I have seen on Commons in terms of colour pallette and composition. There is one tiny focus stack error on the butterfly's leg but personally doesn't bother me. created by Sven Damerow - uploaded by Sven Damerow - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These early morning images are great, but this one has lots of over-exposed areas, like on the edge of the wings, above the head and the top right background. Is this a focus stack? - looks like it when you look at the inconsistent webs and the echo errors in the background (above left of head).Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly focus-stacked, and I will add the focus stack template to the image page. I don't see much sign that the note you've left is anything but a genuine part of the bokeh, but I could be wrong Cmao20 (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for overexposure, yes, this is probably true, but I kind of like it as it is - the early morning sun reflecting off things does make them appear bright white, and I'm fine with that. I agree other photos of this butterfly are probably better from an identification/encyclopedia illustration viewpoint, but I just find this one beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern of the bokeh has been duplicated, a typical stacking error. I think the problems could be sorted if Sven Damerow can be contacted to restack. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I guess he is not around. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support It has very interesting details, even the drops on the butterfly can be counted. IMO despite the stacking errors this image deserves a star. --IamMM (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20’s and IamMM’s convincing reasoning. --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lmbuga (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image quality, very bad contrast. -- Karelj (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the weak contrast; maybe it could be strengthened a bit on the insect, but given the generally light colors in this image there's not too much you could do. But for me the expertly executed bokeh makes it almost magical, and I'm not sure that works with any more contrast. Daniel Case (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I do think the crop would help. Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThe colors are fabulous Dinkum (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do wonder if some have forgotten this is a 43MP live in-the-field insect photo and sharp at 100%. We've recently featured some blurry pictures at a small fraction of that resolution and not nearly as pretty colours and light. -- Colin (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This shot has is shortcomings but still one could loose himself in the abundance of detail and atmosphere and is well worth to be featured IMHO --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, detail, colors, composition Poco a poco (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in accordance with other supporters above. -- Radomianin (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera#Family : Pieridae (Whites and Sulphurs)

File:Maréchal Canrobert by Nadar.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2022 at 12:10:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by Nadar - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support good, however Ezarateesteban 13:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like your sentence might have cut off?. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture of an important person. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. -- Radomianin (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Virtual-Pano (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451605 06:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 13:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Portrait of Pearl Bailey as Butterfly in St. Louis Woman.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2022 at 03:35:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/People#Musicians_and_singers_performing
Info created by Carl Van Vechten - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is really improved, compared to the image at the source. Do you know or have a sense of how big the original print was? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't imagine huge, given the grain size. 4x6"? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 06:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451694 05:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Musicians_and_singers_performing

Tufted duck[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2022 at 23:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Male tufted duck
Female tufted duck

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Anseriformes#Genus_:_Aythya
Info Male and female tufted duck (Aythya fuligula), all by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but I think the male is not sharp enough to be an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sadly I agree with the above, this is good work as usual for you but the missed focus on the head of the male means that the set is not FP overall Cmao20 (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Alexis Lours (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:A spotted deer or Chital in Jim Corbett national park looking straight to the camera.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2022 at 09:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Subhrajyoti07 -- Subhrajyoti07 talk 09:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Subhrajyoti07 talk 09:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and the pose misses the most interesting feature - it is the spotted deer. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Fischer.H (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good photo but sadly I am persuaded by Charles' reasoning, a photo of a spotted deer ought to have the spots more prominent and visible Cmao20 (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Subhrajyoti07 talk 14:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batsirai 2022-02-02 0956Z.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 06:28:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Storms
Info - created by NASA - uploaded by Cyclonetracker7586 - nominated by HurricaneEdgar -- HurricaneEdgar 06:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Satellite image of Cyclone Batsirai is look good and better image, commons has similar feature picture Hurricane Dennis. -- HurricaneEdgar 06:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really seeing anything here that is different to any other modern satellite hurricane photo, of which Commons has many. -- Colin (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin, nothing wrong with this picture but it doesn't stand out amongst hurricane pictures Cmao20 (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Princess Rosalina 💄 452735 06:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination; thank you for comment here -- HurricaneEdgar 04:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Larus smithsonianus[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2022 at 01:07:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Assessing
Feeding

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Larus
Info: Juvenile American herring gull (Larus smithsonianus) feeding on fish carrion. No existing FP of the species. All by -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Cosmonaut (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely a valuable series, but it might not be sharp enough for FP. Too bad COM:VIC stopped allowing set nominations a long time ago because of technical issues. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assessing sounds anthropomorphic. Have you captured the very first peck at the fish? I think the focus was on the body of the left hand image, not the head and F6.3 has limited DoF. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think assessing is a trait that's observed in behaviour of all animals... Regardless, no, I have not captured the very first peck. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm surprised we don't have any FPs of this species, considering how common they are. I'm mainly opposing because of the first image, which compositionally doesn't work for me, and is lacking in some sharpness for a relatively still shot. I'm not sure yet if I'd abstain or support if the second image were nominated on its own, but I don't think I'd oppose. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar to Rhododendrites and I don't think this is what set nominations are for. Ideally, we'd have a short video clip here, and I don't think selecting two frames really is the purpose of a set. -- Colin (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I concur with Rhodondetrites assessment here, the left image is very cluttered I'd have waited so that the wave wasn't breaking, the right image is better, although some relevant areas are in shadow Poco a poco (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Unappealing light -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination; thank you for the feedback. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from summit of HTHH in June 2017, Damien Grouille.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2022 at 04:42:21

Info - created and uploaded by Instantsea - nominated by HurricaneEdgar HurricaneEdgar 04:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- HurricaneEdgar 04:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Resolution is below 2 MP. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Long-tailed tit Gennevilliers 2022 03 18.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 08:54:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Aegithalidae_(Long-tailed_Tits)
Info Long-tailed tit perched on brambles, all by Alexis Lours -- Alexis Lours (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alexis Lours (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please add the scientific name to the file description. --Cayambe (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Alexis Lours (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't know what to think of the background. It certainly is a bit distracting, but it also gives lots of clues about the environment. The bird itself looks very detailed - Benh (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Benh. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451033 05:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family_:_Aegithalidae_(Long-tailed_Tits)

File:Mein Schiff 4 (IMO 9678408), Rostock.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 07:25:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Ships
Info Cruise ship Mein Schiff 4 in the German overseas port of Rostock. The arrival in November 2020 was its maiden call into this port. Here, the ship was in winter quarters during the Corona lockdown and cruised the Baltic Sea from time to time during short test trips. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gets a little soft near the stern but it can't be perfect. I'm surprised the owner didn't name it "Unser Schiff". Daniel Case (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts on naming, Daniel. As far as I know, a competition was held to find a name. According to the owner's official communication, the possessive pronoun "Mein" is intended to express the core idea of individuality and freedom. Best wishes :) -- Radomianin (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and colours Cmao20 (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452154 05:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles/Water_transport#Ships

File:Non-breeding pied-billed grebe-6514.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 09:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Podicipedidae (Grebes)
Info created & uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice reflection on a very still water - Benh (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 20:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even the reflection is in sharp! --Tagooty (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very nice mirror image, but low resolution -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452405 05:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Podicipedidae (Grebes)

File:Dülmen, Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche, Rosette -- 2022 -- 0669 (crop, kreativ).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 19:39:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany
Info created and uploaded and nominated by XRay -- XRay 💬 19:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photograph was taken with the zoom effect (zoom burst). The background was darkened. -- XRay 💬 19:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay 💬 19:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support keeping the setup steady while zooming ain't easy --92.193.90.205 21:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry, but anonymous votes are not possible. Please come back, log in and vote again. Thank you! --Aristeas (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ermell (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tartafs (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking --Tagooty (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creative -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another image that would make a great album cover, if album covers were still a thing. Looks like a psychedelic dandelion. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different Cmao20 (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel is right. There are still LPs, though. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like it as a stained glass window. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stained glass window. ;-) --XRay 💬 09:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452297 05:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors/Religious_buildings#Germany

File:Panama - panoramio (17).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 15:01:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Info created by diego_cue - uploaded by Panoramio upload bot - nominated by GuerraSucia -- GuerraSucia (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GuerraSucia (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but too noisy in the background to be one of the best photos on this site, and I question whether the blues are too dark. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. In addition, I also miss proper picture descriptions. --Mosbatho (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated, per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, pretty composition but visibly oversaturated even in thumbnail Cmao20 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simplified gallery link. There is no “Panama” section on that gallery page yet, therefore the link does not work and the bot could sort the photo into the wrong section. Therefore I just remove the section anchor; this makes the bot sort the photo (if it gets promoted) into the “Unsorted” section which is a clear and unambiguous hint that we must create the “Panama” section and sort the photo into it. --Aristeas (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sedum acre single - Niitvälja.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 15:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family_:_Crassulaceae
Info all by Ivar (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--IamMM (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tartafs (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452048 05:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family_:_Crassulaceae

File:White-faced Storm-petrel 0A2A9606.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 15:59:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family_:_Oceanitidae_(Austral_storm_petrels)
Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison – nominated by Ivar (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Ivar (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support incredible catch! - Benh (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 17:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the wow factor is the cream on the cake --Virtual-Pano (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! -- Radomianin (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Tartafs (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Really great action in my view. Good light, excellent quality -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JJ Harrison, your pictures continue to amaze me. I'd be honored to go on a photography trip with you one day. Keep being awesome, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Obviously amazing Cmao20 (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452767 05:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome. --Aristeas (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support —-Cbrescia (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 29 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family_:_Oceanitidae_(Austral_storm_petrels)

File:Abandoned Gulmarg Hotel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2022 at 10:47:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#India
Info created by Mohamad Talib Bhat - uploaded by Mohamad Talib Bhat - nominated by me. --Tartafs (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. --Tartafs (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not special enough in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Basile. Interesting elements but they just don't come together in the right way. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case, beautiful place but the composition doesn't really work for me Cmao20 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mugger crocodile (Crocodylus palustris) head.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2022 at 15:41:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Reptiles#Family : Crocodylidae (Crocodiles)
Info Lots of FPs of the American crocodile (too many). None of this species. Uncropped photo taken from a boat. All by Charlesjsharp-- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good details --Michielverbeek (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a big mouth you have, Grandma! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Michielverbeek. -- Radomianin (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done Cmao20 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451175 05:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tartafs (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles#Family : Crocodylidae (Crocodiles)

File:Porte d'Aval (Vue depuis la Manneporte).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2022 at 16:18:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/France#Normandy
Info Cliffs of Étretat - Classic view from the Manneporte to the Porte d'Aval -- Milseburg (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milseburg (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Cmao20 (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Too little sky, especially with all the clouds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451455 05:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tartafs (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive reliefs -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural/France#Normandy

File:Kloster Lichtental - Princely Chapel - façade.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2022 at 06:58:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but my immediate reaction is that I'd prefer brighter sunlight and maybe a bit more sharpness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image, but nothing that catches my attention. The Gallery is crowded with striking images. --Tagooty (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice motif and well framed Cmao20 (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tagooty. -- Karelj (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452448 09:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Radomianin (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tagooty. Good image but it just doesn't have enough wow for FP. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not quite an FP to me, per my remarks above and others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According the suggestions of Ikan Kekek I gave mor light and I shrapened a bit --Llez (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvement. I'm still not convinced this is one of the very best photos on the site, though it's certainly good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A valuable document but not special enough for the FP label -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 13:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clastobasis loici male terminalia posterior view.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2022 at 19:11:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Others
Info created by Okurina - uploaded by Okurina - nominated by Mike Peel -- Mike Peel (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mike Peel (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I saw the thumbnail, I was thinking this was a diagram. Impressive picture. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tartafs (talk) 04:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452129 05:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know nothing of what to expect from this type of photography but it looks like a very soft poorly-executed focus stack. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The real alien! --Yann (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual and excellent quality. --Tagooty (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Diptera#Others

File:LG market square Ukraine solidarity small planet 265° shrinked.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2022 at 14:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Germany
Info created & uploaded by Virtual-Pano - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I opposed this for QI because the upper reaches of the city hall don't look even reasonably good until the size of the photo is reduced to 60%. There are also blotches of color in the sky, in addition to noise that might be expected from a night picture. Nice idea, and I won't be surprised if it's featured, but it doesn't get my vote. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have revisited the source files and spotted corrupted exposure times in several stacks. The image has been freshly rendered and uploded. @Ikan Kekek: @Daniel Case: --Virtual-Pano (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks better now, but I still don't feel that it's one of the best photos on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support After all a refreshing and interesting photo. @Virtual-Pano: Could you fix the coordinates? They point to somewhere mid in the ocean. ;–) No offence, this happens to me, too … --Aristeas (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done coordinates fixed - Lattitude & Longitude were swapped, thanks for pointing this out. --Virtual-Pano (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452203 02:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:TR Yedigöller asv2021-10 img02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2022 at 13:56:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural#Turkey
Info Landscape in the highland part of Yedigöller National Park, Turkey -- all by me --A.Savin 13:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 13:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful, a nice study in how to do a compelling landscape without strong or vivid colours Cmao20 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451336 05:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20 -- Radomianin (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao ... I think the way the clouds echo the lines of the valley below helps. I wish the trees in the distance could have been a bit sharper ... but, if you felt that f/8 here got you a better result than f/11 or 13, I defer. Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Tartafs (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really get it. Certainly a high-quality photograph, but in terms of composition, the middle of the sky feels to me like it's just sitting there, so I don't understand why so many of you experience this as a great composition. Would one of you like to explain a little more? Are you trying to move your eyes around a linear arabesque in the picture frame, or do you have some other method of experiencing a great composition in this instance? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question What does 'linear arabesque' mean? As for your question, I like the hills that seem to extend endlessly into the distance and the tops wreathed with cloud. I think the colours are quite unusual and aesthetically satisfying, with the deep blue of the sky seeming to convey altitude, and the fact that the trees in the foreground appear almost white, which is not something I see everyday. And then you have a few splashes of autumn colour in there as well. Cmao20 (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your answer. It's surprisingly difficult to find the term "linear arabesque" explained online in the way artists I know use it. If you think about Islamic art from the Arab World, Iran, India, etc., you are normally able to move your eyes around it in a satisfying way. If you compare Gothic paintings and tapestries, which are pre-perspectival, they often have a related satisfying movement, often including stereotyped foliage and such. After perspective was introduced to European art, the arabesque nevertheless remained present, though not by the overly literal definitions I'm mostly seeing in search results, which focus only on decorative filigree and such. What it amounts to is that being able to have a satisfying eye movement around a picture frame is a traditional Western aesthetic. There are some types of compositions that do not provide the viewer with satisfying lines (including curves) in every part of the picture frame but work in some other way, and there are other aesthetics that work differently (for example, I've sometimes discussed classical Japanese or Chinese aesthetics here when I've seen examples of pictures that seemed to me to conform to them). I wish my father were still around; he could discuss things like this much more eloquently (of course from his point of view, which is not the only point of view but was one deeply rooted in tradition and a seemingly encyclopedic memory of all kinds of art - he considered art history and tradition to date back to the work of cavemen, by the way, and embrace all the world's cultures), but I'm just a musician who usually appreciates art that's flat on a surface by moving my eyes around the picture frame and hoping to enjoy the experience across the entire picture frame. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay 💬 07:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite honestly, this photo doesn't do much for me; I looked at it again and would still oppose but don't see the point in being a lone opposer. No offense to anyone; it has lots of good qualities, although the composition doesn't add up to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural#Turkey

File:Олененок.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2022 at 00:35:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural/Russia#Northwestern Federal District
Info A young reindeer cub. / created by PSerov - uploaded by PSerov - nominated by JukoFF -- JukoFF (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JukoFF (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark and blurred. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah this doesn't feel like one of the finest images on Commons to me, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sadly per above, I don't think the image quality is too much of a problem but the composition really doesn't appeal to me unfortunately. I feel like I'd like to see a larger panorama and for the reindeer to be placed somewhere more satisfying in the frame Cmao20 (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Princess Rosalina 💄 451130 23:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhesus macaque monkey family D72 16866k.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2022 at 08:59:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Family_:_Cercopithecidae_(Old_World_Monkeys)
Info created by Tagooty - uploaded by Tagooty - nominated by Tagooty -- Tagooty (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Endearing expressions on the members of this family group. Very few FPs of groups of monkeys. --Tagooty (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, there is little in focus and the composiiton is crowded. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a close-knit family group. The females were seen to be very protective of the young ones. The composition conveys this message. --Tagooty (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they would be. When I said crowded, I meant with branches of the tree. It is never ideal to have a PoV below the subject. Often unavoidable, though not so much with a very approachable species. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support I take Charles' point about the low point of view but I quite like the expressions here and it is certainly nice to have a family group Cmao20 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just an observation, as I'm not ready to vote: Long-suffering-looking expression from the monkey on the left, but not very sharp. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How far away was the camera? And how cropped was this image? What was applied afterwards as far as sharpening? 310 mm and ISO 1250 go a long way, but not all of the way, for me in explaining the background so noisy it looks more like a matte painting, and the similar unrealistic effect visible on some of the animals' fur. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: The subject was about 12m (40') distance. Cropped from 6000x4000 to 4492xx3362. Only WB and exposure adjustments applied using Capture NX-D and Lightroom. No sharpening or NR. The fur may look different because the left one is an older animal. I could apply some NR if you think it would help.
@Ikan Kekek: To me, the face and hair of the monkey on the left is very well focussed. The baby and the right one are a bit soft. --Tagooty (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the photo, but I'm not convinced it's one of the very best on the site. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I withdraw my nomination~~ Thanks for the feedback. --Tagooty (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support never give up. JukoFF (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JukoFF: Thanks for the encouragement. I've struck withdraw, hope for more supporting votes. --Tagooty (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452334 06:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ivar (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow Rosella 4436.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2022 at 23:54:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds#Family : Psittaculidae (True Parrots)
Info A well composed and high resolution picture of a beautiful bird. I am really impressed that JJ managed to produce such a sharp and detailed picture at ISO 3200, perhaps he was working with difficult light conditions but I think the result is easily FP. created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tartafs (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452023 05:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. --Ivar (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ermell (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I imagine a 600mm lens with 2x extender absorbs a lot of light. It does compromise sharpness here. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Fischer.H (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds#Family : Psittaculidae (True Parrots)

File:Union Pacific freight train in the Feather River Canyon-3872.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2022 at 02:20:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Vehicles/Land_vehicles#Rail_vehicles
Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support @David: Wir können auch Züge hier in Kalifornien :-) Keine Ahnung, ob es klappt. Ich habe auf jeden Fall eine Menge dabei gelernt. Danke für deine vielen schönen Bilder! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exceptional to me. The competition in the Gallery of Rail_vehicles is stiff. --Tagooty (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bar is indeed high. DG's train images usually have sky don't they? Would landscape have helped not crop the train? Charlesjsharp (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. I don't think this stacks up to Kabelleger's better photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination No problem. It was still a lot of fun to shoot this. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin-Mitte - Amtsgericht I und Landgericht I - Haupttreppenhaus (0047).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2022 at 15:48:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors#Germany
Info IMO a really nice interior with good image quality and composition. There is an existing FP which is taken from ground level rather than an elevated position. The other one shows more of the ceiling but I find the colours look more realistic in this one. created by T meltzer - uploaded by T meltzer - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I much prefer the exisiting one; I wonder whether the 14mm lens used on this one has introduced some distortion of scale in the foreground? Charlesjsharp (talk)
Support This one shows the ground more clearly. I see no reason why both cannot be FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe if I hadn't seen the other one...but I have. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per King, with the note that it seems a bit more sharpened than it could have been. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per KoH. --IamMM (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ikan.--Ermell (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive interior architecture. I totally understand the oppose votes, however my personal feeling when I look at the other FP is it's different enough. Light, PoV and compo -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning subject. I wish we could convince T meltzer to join our community and post more of his amazing architectural shots. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per F. Schulenburg -- Radomianin (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452840 05:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts and Frank. --Aristeas (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Virtual-Pano (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors#Germany

File:Knitted fabric in north India.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2022 at 16:20:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Clothing and textiles
Info Hand made fabrics. All by Shagil Kannur -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Shagil Kannur (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice idea and the composition works for me but too little of the frame is in focus IMO. Cmao20 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cmao20. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose Colorful and cuddly but unfortunately way too unsharp. Remember, while a picture may give us the warm fuzzies, it may well have nice warm colors but the image itself cannot be fuzzy (I mean, you can shoot a kitten or something like that with a nice little soft-focus Gaussian blur layer to give that aawwww dewy look, but that works better with a sharp underlying layer. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Western reef egrets, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2022 at 15:35:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

slate grey morph
dark morph

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus : Egretta
Info There is a white morph too, but photographed in a different position. Existing FP of white morph. All by Charlesjsharp -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personally I think your photo of the white morph is sufficiently good quality to be added to the set, it doesn't bother me that the position is not perfectly mirrored. Cmao20 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely synchronised! --Tagooty (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tartafs (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Egretful support Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I thought I was going to support, but (AI powered?) sharpening seems to have messed the fine feather details - Benh (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452738 05:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a set according to set rules: A group of images which show all possible variations of a particular class of object --Ivar (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point, but the subject is coloured morphs and there are only two accepted variations. I could have added white morph as suggested, but no one else agreed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not a set. Charles I don't understand your point about morphs. The Western reef heron article says there are only two accepted variations as you say, but those are dark and white, not dark and slate grey. It seems perhaps the slate grey is some hybrid or natural variant of dark. Even if we accepted three variants, you'd have to include a white morph photographed in the same way as these two in order to make a proper set. If you don't have a similarly posed white bird to add to this set, then I think you have to withdraw and nominate separately. -- Colin (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could easily have included white morph, but it's a bit late now. The experts can't even agree if Egretta gularis is a separate species. Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Pelecaniformes#Genus : Egretta

File:Ring-billed gull in flight (94615).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2022 at 22:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Larus
Info Larus delawarensis (ring-billed gull) in flight. all by — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The standard for birds-in-flight has been rather high lately. Typically I don't feel like my equipment can keep up, but a good, well-lit opportunity presented itself, so we'll see. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Technically very impressive, but compared to other gulls in flight in the Gallery, it lacks impact to me. --Tagooty (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a dust speck just below the right wing --Virtual-Pano (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Virtual-Pano: Thanks. I've removed one under its right wing and uploaded a new version. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support spacing and detail is pleasing my eye --Virtual-Pano (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The very subtle background to me really makes this ... it looks like something you'd see in a painting. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --IamMM (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is sharp, it is centered, but I don't like the shadow cast by the right wing on the body. And the WB seems a bit to warm. - Benh (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful and good quality Cmao20 (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451704 06:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel and Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds/Charadriiformes#Genus_:_Larus

File:Світло в капличці.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 07:25:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Ukraine
Info Atmospheric long exposure of a small mountain chapel in the Shyshkovi hills at the Dniester river, southwestern part of Ukraine. The title of the picture means Light in the chapel. Metaphorically I perceive it as a strong symbol of hope, considering the current situation. Category suggestions for the file page are very welcome. Thanks in advance.
Created and uploaded by Zysko Serhii (talk). Nominated by -- Radomianin (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 07:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question I like it, but are the chapel and cross leaning back as they go up? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your constructive evaluation, Ikan. Presumably due to the low camera position, distortions occurred to the cross and chapel. A correction in Photoshop did not satisfy me: Straightening both objects spoils the photo. My guess is that the camera position is already too low to apply a correction that corresponds to human viewing habits. Best wishes :) Improvement ideas by other reviewers are very welcome. -- Radomianin (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Atmospheric Cmao20 (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452385 05:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very atmospheric. Slightly leaning lines are OK in this case: we are clearly looking up. --Aristeas (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support But there's a dead pixel blue spot about 1000 px in from the right, near the bottom edge. Would be nice to lose it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Many thanks for your hint, Adam. I have removed the blue hot pixel at position (2410,2153). Additionally I removed two more red hot pixels at the positions (877,158) and (1758,1519) (Values of xy coordinates in pixels). On the file description page I have added an appropriate retouch template. Best wishes :) -- Radomianin (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: Regarding the edit, I left a message on the author's talk page. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious_buildings#Ukraine

File:Anemone coronaria focus stack-20220320-RM-144602.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2022 at 08:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae
Info Close-up of the blossom of an anemone. All by me -- Ermell (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ermell (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was impressed with this beautiful photo at QIC. Congratulations! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452141 12:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rich colors, great light. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful and impressive. Gallery link refined ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Excellent image quality and amazing light and composition. Cmao20 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- IamMM (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The flower is great, but a shame not to manage the leaves and the background to greater effect. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a beautiful picture. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support well composed --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, exposure and focus stacking. --Tagooty (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Family : Ranunculaceae

File:Maestro Batik Tulis di Imogiri.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 14:58:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People#Traditions
Info created by Aconkyeah - uploaded by Aconkyeah - nominated by GuerraSucia -- GuerraSucia (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GuerraSucia (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good color and light, but kind of busy. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I quite like it, but overall too dark IMO -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add an English (or French or Spanish …) description, it’s an interesting photo but we need to understand what it shows. --Aristeas (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Basically, it gives the name of the woman and says she is in the village of Wukirsari in the Yogyakarta area (I don't remember what "Bantul" means, so I'm getting this by context and might be slightly off) and is a master of hand-drawn batik (batik tulis). In order to give a more exact translation, I'd have to look up Indonesian words, because much as a lot of people like to claim it's the same language as Malay, it's different enough to give me some trouble. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you very much, Ikan! Now we know already much more about this photo. – From a map I get the impression that “Bantul” is a town (or a district) south of Yogyakarta. --Aristeas (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are some things I wish were a little different, but to me it's the most interesting photo of the current nominations. The palette and light (brightly colored interior lit with a single warm light source in front of a foggy rainy exterior) evokes 1980s scifi. I'm sure that's quite far from what the photographer intended :) but it's an effective juxtaposition and interesting photo. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites -- IamMM (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm torn on this photo. She truly is a master of traditional batik tulis - look at her pieces hanging on the left - and I really like this as a documentary photo. However, it's dark and hazy, and the only part of it that's even relatively sharp is her face. But many of her batik cloths are sharp enough to be viewed in detail. So overall, I am supporting per the above comments. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting composition, but technical shortcomings. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Rhododendrites and Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support After careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that this image deserves support, though it has some technical shortcomings. -- Radomianin (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 19:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People#Traditions

File:Odenwälder Freilandmuseum - Kleinbauernhof mit ehem. Dorfschänke aus Dallau - Fenster.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2022 at 14:58:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Architectural elements#Windows
Info A window in the former village pub (“Dorfschänke”) Zur goldenen Krone (The Golden Crown) in the Odenwälder Freilandmuseum at Gottersdorf, Germany. This open-air museum consists of historic farmhouses and craftsmen’s houses that have been moved to the museum to save them from demolition and to show how people lived in earlier times. Typical for this museum is the careful furnishing and decoration of the interiors, here with rural flower decorations suitable for the season. I wanted to show the contrast between the shady interior and the warm summer day outside. All by me, --Aristeas (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Something different. Great light! Yann (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support !! This photo I had already saved in my bookmarks a few months ago to nominate it. I am touched by this scene with its homey lighting mood. Great and beautiful! -- Radomianin (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am reminded of another "view through a window FP" but I can't find it. Anyone got any ideas? -- Colin (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I remember this one and that one. We also have a special ‘Windows’ gallery section, but that one does not contain no views through windows. --Aristeas (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was this one. -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that one is a really classic example. --Aristeas (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nicely framed and lit! - Benh (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done Cmao20 (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452820 23:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never expected to see a photo like this before! --SHB2000 (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally am not that impressed with museums but this image sparkles. Might be tempted to crop it a little tighter at top and sides (marked with note) to draw the viewer to look out through the window....just a suggestion, --GRDN711 (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GRDN711! Your suggested crop is indeed a very interesting idea. (I have transferred your crop note from the description page of the photo to this page, to keep the discussion in one place.) I prefer the photo as it is, but others may prefer such a well-done crop. --Aristeas (talk) 10:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Special in its kind. Artistic -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Artistic. --Tagooty (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me think of the world lost 4ever. --A.Savin 14:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it just the way it is --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Architectural elements#Windows

File:Taal Volcano eruption on January 12, 2020.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2022 at 09:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Volcanism
Info created and uploaded by Micluna - nominated by IamMM -- IamMM (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support not the sharpest but impressive. Tomer T (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great composition, if the posterization in the mountain could be sorted. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not done unfortunately. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, even if Micluna doesn't come back to deal with that issue or any other. This is a good example of a photo that merits a feature because of its impact on the viewer, regardless of anything else. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ikan Kekek. --Cayambe (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tartafs (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Radomianin (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to once again be "that guy" and say that, having looked at lot of photos of clouds at sunset, this one doesn't look too striking to me by those standards. Yes, the guys at lower left aren't something you usually see, and they do add to the picture. And I know it's a volcano erupting ... but only because the filename tells me so. On the face of things the eruption plume looks like just another cloud formation. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic atmosphere, feeling of space -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cmao20 (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JukoFF (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452221 05:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Basile. --Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena#Volcanism

File:Ведмідь у лісі.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2022 at 08:59:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Ursidae_(Bears)
Info created by Byrdyak - uploaded by Byrdyak - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support How come that author has so many incredible wildlife shots? I will surely nominate some later. - Benh (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The fearless king of the forest :) Well taken in good quality. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info 127 matches on tineye published by the same author.--Ermell (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above, what appears to be the author's page is here. I don't see anything that jumps out at me as indicating that these images have been uploaded inappropriately, the author is obviously within their rights to upload to Commons and also commercially license their work. But I will leave the discussion of this to others, in terms of the quality of the image this is FP. Cmao20 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seems completely legit. There are actually people who prefer to use photos under a commercial license (!); so why not play both games … --Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just wonder why the author sells pictures through an agency and then offers them here free of charge, which is a nice thing considering the high quality of the pictures. Normally this would cause trouble with the agency, but only for the photographer.--Ermell (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451757 23:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support the open mouth is important Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unless this was zoomed in, whoever took this photo must've been fearless ;-) --SHB2000 (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. Almost certainly taken from a hide in the bear sanctuary. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The current symbolism in this picture cannot be missed ... Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What symbolism? After all, the picture shows "only" a bear, and not a pig... SCNR... --A.Savin 14:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 06:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Ursidae_(Bears)

File:Портрет оленя.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2022 at 08:54:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Cervidae_(Deers)
Info created by Byrdyak - uploaded by Byrdyak - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrei (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrei (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm surprised this doesn't get more votes. It's a gorgeous portrait. - Benh (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. -- Radomianin (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours and composition. Cmao20 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451238 23:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Cmao20. --Aristeas (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice composition and some adjustment which darkens the head or improves contrast or something would make it FP. And a bit of sharpening to the nose? Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 15:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tagooty (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 05:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay 💬 07:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--A.Savin 14:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals/Artiodactyla#Family_:_Cervidae_(Deers)

File:Prugno in fiore - 1.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2022 at 10:27:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Quality images/Subject/Plant life/Flowers
Info created by PROPOLI87 - uploaded by PROPOLI87 - nominated by [[User:{{subst:PROPOLI87}}|]] --
Support A particularly harmonious sprig of plum blossoms. -- (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, mediocre light. Would you consider posting to COM:Photography critiques or at least COM:QIC before posting here? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simply because the few times I've tried, no one has ever answered, or someone after a long time. Therefore I would find it smart to enhance that service on the part of those who should be in charge of it. Best wishes with the best wishes for a day as harmonious as my branch of flowers. (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. IMO something between oversharpened, JPEG artifacts and noisy. The quality for these kind of images should be better. --XRay 💬 05:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination (⧼Anna Massini alias PROPOLI87⧽) (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Papaya[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2022 at 07:05:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

Longitudinal section
Longitudinal section in close-up view

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Food_and_drink#Fruits_(raw)
Info all by Ivar (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition and quality. --Tagooty (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ That closeup is incredible! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Once again very appetizing and instructive. --Aristeas (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 451491 13:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the set: Superb as usual !! -- Radomianin (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Cosmonaut (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Not that I have a problem with this nomination, but a photo and a close up are not given as one the FP 'set' criteria. Are we OK with this? It might lead to many more similar sets, like an animal with a close up of its head. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that there's room for doubt and that your idea is analogous, but it's hard to refuse a nomination that includes this amazing closeup. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from set rules: A group of images depicting the same subject from different viewpoints – we have here two different viewpoints. --Ivar (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To all intents and purposes, both are the same viewpoint. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just noticed you have rushed to oppose my current set nomination. I've not opposed this set, I just wanted clarification. You could have done the same Ivar. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support New camera? Excellent close-up! --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I saw the top one, I initially thought it was some monstrous mouth full of rotting teeth. Still can't quite shake that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ermell (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not a set by any stretch of the definition. One image is just a closer shot than the other. They are both good photos but this really is not what set nominations are for. As Charlesjsharp fears, if we accept this sort of thing as a set, we're just going to get cases where someone literally just twisted the zoom ring or took a few steps forward. Please Ivar, withdraw this and nominate both. The purpose of set nominations is not just "I took a few great photos of something, and I'd like to nominate them all in one go". -- Colin (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have aleady said I agree, so should oppose. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You guys have a point I don't feel like I should overlook. I've crossed out my vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pallas cat.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2022 at 10:23:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured_pictures/Animals/Mammals/Carnivora#Family_:_Felidae_(Felids)
Info created by User:Scottmliddell - uploaded by User:Scottmliddell - nominated by User:RZuo.--RZuo (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --RZuo (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment F4 was not ideal. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shallow depth of field so nose is not in focus though eyes are very sharp. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And why would that be a problem? --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the nose and whiskers and more of the ears should be in focus, but at 2m (I'm guessing) DoF is only 18mm. I am also not keen on the tilted composition and cropped ears (it's not a cropped image), but that's a matter of taste. With zoo photography, I imagine there is usually more opportunity to get settings right than in the wild. The light can't have been great and a higher ISO (on this body) might have resulted in unacceptable noise. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree with you that this doesn't qualify as a featured image, I'm perfectly ok with a shallow depth of field. What's important to me is that the eyes are in focus in an image like this. In general, I think we're sometimes leaning too much towards "everything should be sharp in an image". This is just a reminder that no such rule exists. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Awkward crops notwithstanding, this does not stand out among our many, many cat pictures. To say nothing of the Internet's practically endless supply of cat pictures. Daniel Case (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a domestic cat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per above, very cute and beautiful but I am not sure it stands out particularly considering some of the quibbles over image quality Cmao20 (talk) 00:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452451 02:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--A.Savin 11:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dorie Miller - Restoration, full.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2022 at 23:04:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/People/Portrait#Men
Info created by unknown U.S. Navy photographer - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Photo with a lot of history and notability. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yann (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452274 01:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo in excellent condition. It looks like you darkened the photo and increased the contrast. Could you give us some insight into why? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We know, from our knowledge of sailor uniforms, that his clothing should be fairly bright white, and the tie fairly dark. The rest follows. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! It's kind of a judgement call to a big extent, and there are compromises between detail and colour, so I didn't want to go too dark and slightly stretched the whites to bring out detail. Facial detail didn't have any problems - midtones hold detail well, and his neckerchief is a fair bit darker than his skin, so as lomg as I watched the neckerchief details - any darker and we'd lose them i think, but they all still show - So I knew I was fine in the face if I didn't screw the neckerchief up, thanks to that, and other photos of him show he has quite dark skin. I don't think you can always get skintones perfect in historical photography, but it's certainly easier with a 1940s photo than a 19th century one, so we do our best. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...I just realised I could write several pages on trying to get skin colours accurate in old photos. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should! Your article could be useful to others who might want to do digital restorations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might do it for the Signpost on en-wiki. Just going to have to be careful about wording, given, y'know, racism exists, and the topic of shades of skin colour has a load of history behind it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Llez (talk) 06:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. --Aristeas (talk) 08:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Coffeeandcrumbs. Good image resolution. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IamMM (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo. --SHB2000 (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --GRDN711 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tagooty (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mosbatho (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Ivar (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People/Portrait#Men

File:Kloster Anhausen-msu-2021-0633-.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2022 at 01:24:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings#Germany
Info An atmospheric photo of a ruined monastery in Germany. I enjoy the colours and the stormy sky. created by Matthias Süßen - uploaded by Matthias Süßen - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support I quite agree. Excellent.~~ Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Have to agree with El Grafo. Once you see it... Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --The Cosmonaut (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing support until the retouched area is dealt with appropriately. --The Cosmonaut (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the time being. Great shot, but the editing has some shortcomings: It looks like the author was trying to cover up a path of trampled plants going through the field towards the ruins. That's not a problem per se, but a) it should be declared via {{Retouched}} and b) the cloning/retouching is too obvious for my taste. The filled-in grains match the surrounding ones in neither size, sharpness, nor hue. Once you know it's there, you can even see it in the thumb. --El Grafo (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Princess Rosalina 💄 452074 09:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The off-center placement of the ruin and the rushing (seemingly) clouds do it. Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The inelegant retouching is disturbing. --Ermell (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Really the most impressive photo of the Anhäuser Mauer I have ever seen. I would be so happy if the retouching in the field could be improved. --Aristeas (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is the retouching needed? What would be wrong with showing a path? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right, Ikan, showing the path (if there is one) would be another solution. I just regret that at the moment (as El Grafo has pointed out and Adam and Ermell have agreed) we have some inelegant retouching in the photo. It would be great if either (a) that retouching could be improved and documented or (b) the retouching could be removed. Please note that I support the photo as it is, I just would be even happier if either (a) or (b) was applied … ;–) --Aristeas (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per El Grafo. --Ivar (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info Let me first thank Cmao20 for the nomination. Unfortunately, I can't improve the photo at the moment, as I'm on the road and don't have access to the original file. I will be back home in the middle of April. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Matthias Süßen for your reply. I think it would be best if I withdrew this photo for now so that you have the chance to make any changes that you wish, instead of carrying on and hoping that it scrapes a pass even without the changes made. You're very welcome for the nomination, and I will be really happy to renominate in future. Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination per above Cmao20 (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cmao20 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]